. .nx.
. . 4 . z.
5.5

72%...
'

 

lb:
5

_ n

3%.?

‘

 

 

a an}?
:25:

m.

I: . V
(-113...
. .
5.32.3

+ .
ya we h
< t. HJCEEL ,2

n.”

.«ufiawfi:
kumh. a

.
s... a, ..3...nxmm:
nu . as z$r3H
in“? 2.39. .
x; :1. .3
i: 93.1.”:
i§1hr¥f :6. :1-
52:135.)

£2»...th

‘ awn? {m
a .04.. Rafi:

. o.
. L“ W 1:31

. ‘
.525...
35......
r W...
.. -
‘ $5.453? 9.6..
ti .2 5i: =.M.su=i.5 . 5.5.
$5? having: . . 3.1.3“... .,
‘55,
3a..

. axe
; 6‘ ... . if.
15.64.29)... n. e a .fismuruzhuw :3.
3:15. .. in... .3! xxx... (It. .3.
‘5. i 3.22.. . 5...; . , £3 .3... .. .
. i .4 . .. 3 u). nmwé. d. I .92.”.
f . i r .. _ .
‘ 413.. e x
A a in. . a.
2 V I.{.v! Kl.
1:34... 3. ‘
51.2.55. ..

. reacts“
..

a .1.
inn}...

1 ’1:
24. t... v 01....
I {.gnlolku '3\1_.=.Xiia.i
if. .7 1 '1. .i t A
4: zfi;\.¢ .\A:tui§q
3515:... V »:
.12....r33i4 .

$11.1. '~o5.. .. .x.‘

112.2... 1.ylpi.:o‘.r::
L2... 8: 511.1
1

:3... :. .

ft 001/

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Need For and Form of Nonprofit Management
Education at the Graduate Level: The Case for Natural
Resource Specialization at Michigan State University

presented by

Greg Ostrander

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

M.S. degree in Resource Development

Am

/ Major professor

Date May 6, 2002

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE ' DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

THE NEED FOR AND FORM OF NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT
EDUCATION AT THE GRADUATE LEVEL: THE CASE FOR NATURAL
RESOURCE SPECIALIZATION AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
By

Greg Ostrander

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment Of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Resource Development

2002

ABSTRACT
THE NEED FOR AND FORM OF NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT
EDUCATION AT THE GRADUATE LEVEL: THE CASE FOR NATURAL
RESOURCE SPECIALIZATION AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
By

Greg Ostrander

This study was conducted tO examine the need for university level nonprofit
management education, and specialized subsector education in particular. It looks
specifically at the needs of creating one such program for the natural resource based
nonprofit subsector, a graduate level initiative that would specialize in the management
of environmental and conservation organizations. This program would be located at
Michigan State University within the Department of Resource Development, College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Focus groups were employed to determine the educational needs of local natural
resource based nonprofit organizations in the mid-Michigan area. Two sessions were
held with past and present employees Of such groups in order to gain insight into the
necessary skills and knowledge required for their organizations’ success. Additional
input was sought to determine other relevant factors in the design of such an initiative.

Results showed a wide array of skillsets and real world experience Opportunities
to be incorporated into the creation Of such a natural resource based program. Findings
were then used to create recommendations as to ultimate form and curricular content.
Implications for the creation of additional specializations at the University are also

considered.

It seems inappropriate to dedicate something as trivial as
a thesis to the memory of those who died in the tragedy Of
September 11‘“. It would likewise seem unthinkable for
me not to mention them and the Others who have died in
the war on terrorism in even some small way here.

It is my hope that their sacrifices will serve to prod the rest
Of us to remember what is truly important in life. May it
also serve as a reminder of both our enduring freedoms and
our eternal responsibility in safeguarding them.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to God and the following people:

To major professor Dr. JO Ann Beckwith, Dr. Frank Fear, and Dr. Mark Wilson for their
help and assistance in the preparation of this thesis. I would also like to thank Dr. Scott
Witter and Dr. Kim Chung for their hard work and dedication to the Department of

Resource Development and its students.

To Maria, Elise, Peter, Doris, Kelly, Doris, Nick, Loretta, Robert, Ben, Frances and the

rest of my family for their constant support and role in making me the person I am today.

To Mike Novak, “Doc” Davis, Norm Brown, and the other people of the world who go

out Of their way to help Others because it is simply in their nature.

Most importantly I would like to thank my God and savior Jesus Christ through whom all

things are possible. May he forever give us the wisdom and Strength to do what is right.

“Far and away the best prize
that hfe offers is the chance to
work hard at work worth doing.”

- Theodore Roosevelt (1903)

Portions proofed by Pluma Communications

iv

PREFACE

In writing a thesis on the importance of natural resource based (NRB) nonprofit
organizations, I was forced to deal with the difficult task of defining what exactly is a
natural resource based nonprofit. This term was chosen in lieu of “environmental”,
“conservation”, or a host of other terms whose connotations have unfortunately become
controversial, politically charged, or exclusionary. Their use in early drafts prompted a
series of questions that I sometimes found myself hard pressed to answer.

This change created almost as many problems as it solved, for I must now attempt
to define this somewhat ambiguous term even though I know I will no doubt offend some
people in the process. This is not my intent. I simply found it to be too distracting of an
issue to address anywhere in the body of the paper. It is still an important issue that
needs to be examined, so I have decided to address it here and up front.

Such a definition could be determined by the use of formal Internal Revenue
Service NTEE codes, although this would be quite restrictive. A “I know one when I see
one” approach would only cow to the opposite extreme. The literature is replete with
acknowledgement that the sector is highly eclectic in nature (Rosenbaum, 1998; Kline
1997; Shabecoff 1993; Norton, 1991). According to Reinhardt (2000:8),

Environmental groups are wildly heterogeneous. Some use multi-million dollar

budgets to hire Ivy League lawyers, scientists, and economists who work on a

broad range of environmental issues worldwide; others are focused on a single

issue in a particular community. Community-based groups on the other side of
environmental issues, advocating less government intervention and increased
tolerance for environmental extemalities, have also appeared.

Attempts to invalidate these latter groups as “true” NRB organizations would run counter

to the basic nonprofit tenet that extols plurality. It is also highly contextual, as one

person’s “scorch and burn” is another’s “wise use”. Just as both the National Rifle
Association and Hand Gun Control are both legitimate nonprofit organizations, so must a
wide variety of ideologies be accommodated here.

Another issue in characterizing these groups includes an examination of the
primary emphasis of their organizations. A good case in point is 4-H, an excellent
nonprofit that no one would question has strong roots in rural America, farming, and
natural resources. Their history is replete with programs that highlight responsible
environmental stewardship. But are they a natural resource based nonprofit or a youth
organization? Does is have to be an either/or, or can it be a both/and? The Michigan
Lung Association is another good example. Is it a NRB group or a health organization?
Is the Greater Lansing Food Bank a NRB group or a health and human services
organization? I want to stress that this is not a question of any group having to being
“good enough” to be considered a NRB nonprofit, and no judgements as to worth are
being made here. It is simply a matter of degree in mission emphasis, a degree that is an
important consideration to this study because of the need to focus on a very specific type
of organization.

It is also important to unequivocally state that any group not classified as a NRB
nonprofit by this study is not unimportant to the purposes of this study or any proposed
programs at Michigan State University. Most youth, advocacy, health, environmental,
and conservation organizations have more in common than they do apart. All such
groups will have equal access, and it is the hope of the author that if a formal nonprofit
management education center is established at Michigan State University that it will

eventually cater to a wide variety of specializations. There is also no reason why students

vi

interested in working or volunteering for such groups as 4-H, Future Farmers of America,
or the Michigan Lung Association could also not enroll in a NRB program if they feel
that it would benefit them.

With all that being said, my definition of a natural resource based nonprofit
organization is simply this: any unincorporated volunteer group, or any formal 501c3,
50104, or political action committee that has as its primary focus a mission that deals
with the quality of natural resources or its management in a nonviolent manner,
regardless of ideology. Emphasis is placed on the mission’s primary cause, and not a
secondary beneficial effect, but can still include hunter’s conservation clubs, policy
development centers, membership organizations, land conservation groups, and local
advocacy organizations, just to name a few.

That is it, and it is still somewhat ambiguous and relatively unsatisfying, but it is
still enough for the purposes of this study. And that is all this is: a one shot exercise for a
highly focused thesis. Regardless of the definition, I wish to thank all of the individuals
and organizations that have worked and sacrificed to further the mission of shepherding
our planet. This includes the farmers of our land, the hunters of the Great White Buffalo,
the migrant workers of our fields, the scientific managers of our wildlife, the religious
leaders of our churches, the fishermen of our Great Lakes, and the preservationists of our
planet. The movement will succeed when we finally put our differences aside and move
forward with the important task at hand. We truly do have more in common than we do
apart.

- Greg Ostrander, March 27, 2002

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

CHAPTER ONE

INTR DU TION

The Nonprofit Sector in the United States .......................................................... l
The importance of the nonprofit sector .......................................................... 1
Current problems and challenges ............................................................... 3

The Role of Education ................................................................................ 4
A need for educated leaders ..................................................................... 4
Subsector education in natural resource based nonprofits ................................... 7

The Role of Michigan State University ........................................................... 11

Chapter Endnotes .................................................................................... 14

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Nonprofit Management Education Programs .................................................... 15
First conference, 1986 ........................................................................... 16
Second conference, 1996 ........................................................................ l9
Consequent criticisms and responses .......................................................... 22
Current program considerations and curricular offerings ................................... 25
Summary .......................................................................................... 28

NRB Nonprofits in Michigan and the Nation .................................................... 29
Early days in Michigan .......................................................................... 30
Growth and change .............................................................................. 31
Rifts within the sector ........................................................................... 33
Characteristics of the sector and its membership ............................................ 37
Summary .......................................................................................... 39

CHAPTER THREE

W

Study Design ......................................................................................... 41

Methodology and Execution ........................................................................ 43

CHAPTER FOUR

STUDY FINDINGS

Skills and Knowledge Questioning Results ...................................................... 47
Skill set 1 synopsis .............................................................................. 48
Skill set 2 synopsis .............................................................................. 53
Skill set 3 synopsis ............................................................................... 54

viii

Course Questioning Results ........................................................................ 55

Additional Questioning Results ................................................................... 62
Study Analysis and Summary ..................................................................... 69
CHAPTER FIVE
MPR EN I E ALY N RE MMENDA N
Rationale for Proceeding with a NRB Nonprofit Initiative .................................... 74
Curricular and Program Considerations .......................................................... 80
Key literature findings .......................................................................... 80
Focus groups: core competencies ............................................................. 82
Curricular and Program Recommendations ...................................................... 87
Course sequence ................................................................................. 88
Course descriptions .............................................................................. 89
Other considerations ............................................................................ 95
Future areas of study ............................................................................ 96
APPENDIX
Recruitment Letter .................................................................................. 98
Consent Form ........................................................................................ 99
REFERENCES .................................................................................... 100

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

In an age of smaller government, privatization, and budget crises, nonprofit
organizations are increasingly being called upon to fill the void left by the United States
government and its shrinking welfare state (Ott, 2001; Light, 2000; P. Hall, 1994).
Whether or not these nonprofit organizations are up to the task is another matter, and in
areas as important as health, education, and the environment there is little room for error.
Many now see the nonprofit sector in the throes of a multi-faceted crisis as it continues to

try to do so much with so little (Wolf, 1999; Salamon, I997; Hopkins, 1993).

1) The Nonprofit Sector in the United States
The importance of the nonprofit sector

Nonprofit organizations are formally classified by the Internal Revenue Service as
legal institutions that are neither for-profit private entities nor public governmental
agencies. Other common names include not-for-profits, third sector organizations, and
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Less formal definitions would include
voluntary organizations of all sizes regardless of whether they were legally incorporated.
To most Americans they are simply the schools, churches, unions, and charities with
which they associate or have contact with every day.

The important role of the third sector serves as the cornerstone of “government
failure theory”, where State intervention is seen as an inefficient choice for the
management of certain public goods and services (Young, 2001). This notion and the

demise of “big government” took strong hold in the 19805 under President Reagan, and

has gained fresh legs (albeit wobbly ones) under President George W. Bush’s “faith
based” initiative (Taylor, 2001).l In these cases the nonprofit community is seen as
programmatically more effective, financially more efficient, and serving as a necessary
buffer between the public and its government.

The importance of voluntary organizations has origins that date back to
Tocqueville’s notion of a “civil society”, and the widely held belief that nonprofits are a
major reason for the success of the United States as both a democracy and a country
(Salamon and Anheier, 1997). In advocating this view Peter Drucker states:

Today, we know that the nonprofit institutions are central to American society

and are indeed its most distinguished feature. . . [they are] central to the quality of

life in America, central to citizenship, and indeed carry the values of American

society and. . .tradition (1990: xiii).

For many Americans, giving money to nonprofit organizations allows them to voice their
opinions on important societal questions by “voting with their dollars”, supporting issues
and causes they hold dear to their hearts (Van Til, 1994; Ostrander and Schervish, 1990).

The economic impact of the nonprofit sector is an important contribution to
American society as well, with the number of paid nonprofit employees rising from 5.5
million in 1977 to 10.6 million in 1997 (Independent Sector, 2001). This represents 7.1%
of total US. employment numbers and is largely due to an accompanying increase in the
number of nonprofit organizations, which rose from 739,000 to 1.19 million during the
same period. Figures also put the nonprofit share of the national income at 6.7% in 1998,
representing $7.3 trillion. Looking specifically at 501c3 and 501c4 organizations, 1998

figures show 874,000 of these nonprofits employing 9.6 million people.2 Such numbers

aside, perhaps the greatest impact of nonprofit organizations as diverse as Right to Life,

the Sierra Club, and the National Rifle Association have been in their shaping of public

opinion, governmental policy, and national election results.

Current problems W

Despite their successes, many nonprofit organizations now face serious challenges
as we head into the 21‘t century. Gone are the glory days of the 19605 and 19705 which
saw massive Federal funding for these groups, and financial sustainability continues to be
a serious threat for all but the largest nonprofits (Wolf, 1999; P. Hall, 1994). Americans
also seem to have less time for civic engagement than they had in the past, resulting in a
membership that is more likely to write a check than it is to volunteer valuable time
(Putnam, 1995).3 Even with increases in total giving by the general public, it does not
appear that they will be able to make up for the losses in government funding. Relevant
data has varied, showing either an inability to match the rates of these losses or an
outright decline in per capita giving growth (Ott, 2001). Giving as a percentage of
household income has also stayed flat at 1.7% from 1991 to 1998 (Independent Sector,
2001).

The scandal over how the Red Cross has used their September 11‘h donations
(Barstow, 2001) also highlights another problem that the sector is facing: a loss of
credibility and trust among the general public towards nonprofits (Salamon, 2001). This
is particularly problematic because the explicit role of nonprofits is to serve the public
trust. Unfortunately, the Red Cross scandal is not an isolated incident, as the United Way
and other prominent nonprofit organizations have run into recent credibility problems as

well (P. Hall, 1994).

This loss of trust has bled over into the US. Congress. Some members contend
that nonprofits are abusing their tax exempt status to unfairly compete with private
businesses, and are calling for better reporting and more accountability (Hopkins, 1993).
The Red Cross scandal has made things worse, and at a recent House subcommittee
hearing Louisiana Representative Billy Tauzin went on record as saying “like a kid in a
candy store [the Red Cross] got big eyes. . .the question is whether they misled the
American public or not, and I think they did” (Levine, 2001). In Michigan, Attorney
General Jennifer Granholm has also recently called for legislation that could potentially
limit donations to charities in the Middle East and other war torn areas of the world
(Detroit Free Press, 2001). While most major attempts to pass prohibitive legislation
have failed, a worse case scenario could revoke the tax exempt status of many nonprofits,

essentially ending the sector as we know it today (P. Hall, 1994).

2) The Role of Education

A need for educated leaders

 

How nonprofit organizations and their managers have responded to these and
other challenges has received decidedly mixed reviews (Ott, 2001; Light, 2000). While it
has been acknowledged that some significant strides have been made, there remains a
general sentiment that nonprofit managers have failed to keep up with the additional
demands foisted upon them in the past decades. A need for effectively trained and
educated leaders is seen as an important issue (Wolf, 1999; Weber, 1996; Herisse1995;
Cohen, 1989).

Appropriate education for these leaders is similar in some ways to those of their

counterparts in government and business, but decidedly different in others. For example,

Light (2000) suggests that many nonprofits can benefit from implementing a variety of
reforms that private industry has already employed. Scientific management is one such
example. Many nonprofit managers have little formal business education, making this
“best practices” approach that establishes standard codes of conduct particularly helpful.
Other potential reforms include increased accountability and the use of measurable
outcomes, increased use of marketing and public relations, and increased financial
discipline in the face of economic downturns and cutbacks. Light (2000) also warns,
however, that nonprofits are at risk if they simply try to study these models and blindly
impose them upon their own sector. The distinctive reality they operate under calls for a
more sector specific approach in a variety of areas.

This specificity has been sorely lacking in many instances. A case in point can be
seen in the need for increased marketing skills in nonprofit organizations, where the
scholarly literature has favored the needs of the private sector for quite some time:

It has tended to focus on the problems of managers who deal in goods, who work

in large enterprises, who market from the manufacturing level, and who operate in

the corporate setting. . .relatively neglected have been the marketing activities of
organizations that sell services. . . [and] tend to be small. . . [like] nonprofit and

voluntary organizations (Moyer, 1994: 249).

Some of the inherent qualities of nonprofits make their individual needs even
more unique, factors that many see as fundamentally different than those of business and
government. These include value-laden missions, profits that are seen as means rather
than ends, and revenues that are limited by an inability to issue monetary stock or levy

taxes.4 Herman and Heimovics (1994) see nonprofits as having to stress the integration

of mission, resource acquisition, and strategy into mutually reinforcing coherent plans.

Specialized education and training to deal with these issues is needed but not widely
available. Well-known nonprofit expert Peter Drucker wrote:

Little [training or education] pays any attention to the distinct characteristics of

the non-profits or to their specific central needs: to their mission, which

distinguishes them so sharply from business and government; to what are

“results” in nonprofit work; to the strategies required to market their services and

obtain the money they need to do their job; or to the challenge of introducing

innovation and change in institutions that depend on volunteers and therefore
cannot command. . .There is thus a real need among the non-profits for materials
that are specifically developed out of their experience and focused on their

realities and concerns (1990:xv).

American universities have responded, and since that time the number of schools
that offer at least three graduate level nonprofit courses has increased from 17 in 1990 to
86 in 1999 (Ott, 2001). Mirabella and Wish (2001) more recently put the number at 97
for such programs, although much of this coursework still only counts towards a
“nonprofit specialization” within existing Masters of Business Administration (MBA) or
Masters of Public Administration (MPA) programs. At Michigan State University, only
two courses are needed to fulfill the requirement of nonprofit specialization within a
Masters of Public Administration.

While specialization of this type may be adequate for introducing students to a
sector they may have to work with, they are very different in nature from the broad
offerings of typical professional degrees that attempt to prepare students for careers in a
specific sector. Some universities do have more comprehensive nonprofit programs with
broader coursework offerings, although it is difficult to tell how many are in existence as
most reside within a variety of other departments and do not stand on their own. These

more comprehensive programs often have membership in the Nonprofit Academic

Centers Council, which listed 29 programs as members in 2000 (Brown, 2001).5 This

proxy is by no means definitive as to the true number of larger programs, but is useful for
illustrative purposes.

The true state of nonprofit education in the United States thus remains somewhat
unclear. While there is no doubt that the number of universities that offer some graduate
courses is quickly growing, it is difficult to tell if their programs offer enough breadth
and substance to be of true benefit to the sector. Considering the increase in the number
of nonprofits and their employees (Hodgkinson and Weitzman, 2001; Gronbjerg, 2001), a
valid question remains as to whether these institutions will be able to adequately fulfill
this growing need. At the very least, some specializations within existing programs will
need to be expanded, and more actual nonprofit departments may need to be created. In
way of comparison, there are currently 767 MBA and 347 MPA programs in the United

States.

Subsector education in natural resource based nonprofits

One aspect of these larger nonprofit programs is that they most often teach
“generic” sector education, preparing students for careers in the nonprofit field as a whole
and not specifically for any of its differentiated subsectors. The eclectic nature of
individual nonprofits and their missions, which includes groups as diverse as unions,
churches, universities, and charitable organizations, also raises the question of whether or
not an increase in nonprofit subsector education is necessary as well. While there are
indeed many programs in existence geared specifically towards arts administration,
hospital administration, and educational administration, specific educational programs for
a number of other nonprofit subsectors has been seriously neglected. Advocacy

organizations serve as a good case in point. despite their important mission in increasing

awareness and advancing action for important societal issues and causes (Snow, 1992).
The only subsector specialized education that concentrates a significant amount of time
on advocacy issues are Masters of Social Work programs (Mirabella and Wish, 2000),
although these focus almost exclusively on health and human services issues (Sturtevant,
1997).

Turning to the needs of natural resource based (N RB) nonprofit organizations,
Langton (1982) advocated the importance of a long list of skills (e. g., administration,
financial management, fundraising, board development, staff management, volunteer
utilization, citizen organizing, media relations, coalition building).° He concluded that
the next stage in the success of the environmental movement would be in the successful
management of the NRB nonprofit organizations themselves:

[N RB nonprofit] groups have a strong need for leadership, particularly in

promoting values and change regarding environmental protection and

preservation. At the same time, their management needs are great because they
must administer membership records, renewal notices, publications, finances, and
the like. If they don’t take care of their management needs they will not have the
resources to promote their values; but, if they do not promote values, they will not

attract resources (Langton, 1982: 14).

He spent little attention discussing exactly how these leaders would gain these skills,
however. Snow (1992) saw a particularly strong need for leadership education for NRB
nonprofit organizations, a need he advocated as being largely unaddressed at the
university level. Considering the “unique and crucial roles [these NRB nonprofit
organizations play] through effective research, mass communication, lobbying, agency
monitoring, litigation, and various forms of direct action” (Snow, 1992:xxx), it would

seem that such important organizations as the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club,

Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, the Nature Conservancy, the League of

Conservation Voters, and the National Wildlife Federation would be able to find
specialized education available for them at the university level. There are many such
organizations at the state and local level as well, such as the Michigan United
Conservation Clubs, the Michigan Environmental Council, Urban Options, the Michigan
Wildlife Habitat Foundation, Earth Share of Michigan, the Michigan Audubon Society,
and literally hundreds of other small all-volunteer organizations. But an extensive
literature review and web site search of university based nonprofit management programs
found no such NRB specialization. At most, some offered opportunities to take dual
degrees and courses in environmental policy. None explicitly offer to teach management
classes geared specifically towards NRB nonprofit organizations (Mirabella, 2002).

If nonprofit programs are not available that specialize in the management of NRB
nonprofits, an alternative would be to have NRB departments offer a focus on nonprofit
management. However, research done by Snow (1992) reveals that little is being by
these departments in regards to this issue either. Only 11% of such schools said that they
had a thorough curriculum in management and administration, and only 2% said that this
preparation was one of their primary missions. None of the natural resource graduate
programs were geared towards the needs of NRB nonprofits:

To the extent that they train in agency management at all, their efforts clearly

emphasize the administration of natural resource agencies of government and, to a

lesser degree, private enterprise. Moreover, many of these programs seem to

place little emphasis on humanistic and philosophical concerns related to working

in the environmental professions (Snow, 1992: 218).

In regards to his assessment of nonprofit management programs, Snow (1992:195) had

similar discouraging words:

Most of these [nonprofit] programs are very new and seem to tend toward training
executives for careers in large, stable nonprofit institutions. How well such
efforts will prepare students bound for jobs in nonprofit organizations committed
to social change...is an open discussion.

With both nonprofit management programs and natural resource programs largely
ignoring the NRB nonprofit leadership issue, there exists a great need for the creation of
such programs at the university level. This need is even greater today because “the work
of conservation is more geographically dispersed, more technical, and more complex than
ever” (Roush, 2002).7 Beyond these technical factors, NRB nonprofits also face a
leadership challenge similar to that seen in the nonprofit sector as a whole. Much of this
is due to old traditions that required most NRB leaders to first and foremost be highly
trained scientists as opposed to effective organizational managers (Berry and Gordon,
1993). Berry and Gordon also point out that the complex and uncertain nature of the
environment itself means that NRB leaders have to consistently deal with emotionally
charged issues that involve long time horizons, many of which rely on conflicting
scientific bases and multi-disciplinary solutions.8

In addition, environmental leadership also relies heavily on “managing”
stakeholders not directly employed by their organizations. On an internal level, their
unpaid volunteers can not be dictated to as easily as paid for-profit employees. And
externally, major citizen involvement is often required at public hearings and other
forums to help determine environmental policy. Grassroots organizing skills are utilized
in all sectors, but they are particularly relevant to nonprofit advocacy organizations

whose missions often expressly rely on the involvement of members, volunteers, and

ordinary citizens in advancing important societal issues.

10

It is only logical that N RB nonprofit education reflect the factors of both the
nonprofit sector as a whole as well as those of the NRB subsector in particular. These
need to be incorporated into a program that is appropriate to their specific needs as
opposed to just specializations within M.B.A. or M.P.A. programs. If not, the sector will
have to continue to be content with NRB nonprofit leaders that are not formally trained in
leadership and oriented more for government or private sector employment.

...the field is wide open. Attention should be given to the creation and refinement

of a curriculum emphasizing nonprofit organization management in the context of

environmental advocacy. Visiting faculty who possess practical experience could
help design such programs and would be of great use in teaching. . .and in

providing internships in their respective organizations (Snow, 1992: 219).

3) The Role of Michigan State University

Recognizing this deficiency, Michigan State University and the Department of
Resource Development are seeking to fund the Gordon Guyer Endowed Professorship in
Nonprofit Natural Resource Management and Preservation. Professor and acting
Chairperson of the Department of Resource Development, Scott Witter (2001), notes:

[NRB nonprofits] have sought to organize sports persons, conservationists, and

environmentalists alike to work together to enhance and preserve habitat needed

to keep an important part of our heritage. . .To continue this tradition will not only
require a sustainable natural resource base, but coordinated efforts of these
nonprofits, Land Grant Universities, regulatory agencies, industry, and the general
public.

Although the specific duties of the professorship remain to be delineated, one
potential direction would be the establishment of a nonprofit management program that

would educate tomorrow’s NRB executives, employees, board members, and volunteers.

This approach would require the endorsement of the Dean and other administrators, but if

11

such approval were given the exact nature and form of the program would need to be
determined:

Given the importance of nonprofit organizations in American society, and

the lack of adequate higher education for prospective N RB nonprofit leaders

in particular, what form and content should a specialized program in NRB
nonprofit management take at Michigan State University within the

Department of Resource Development, College of Agriculture and Natural

Resources?

The most obvious questions that arise deal with the coursework associated with the
program. Whether or not it should be a two-year professional degree or a traditional
academic program should also be explored, as well as whether or not internships and
other forms of experiential learning should be used to give students a real life feel for the
job and its requirements.

Preliminary investigation has shown that no such program currently exists, and
research in the area is clearly needed. This would benefit several stakeholders,
particularly NRB nonprofit organizations that look to Land Grant universities such as
Michigan State for aid in educating their prospective leaders and employees. Federal and
State governmental agencies would also benefit, as many are now forced to partner with
these organizations in the face of increasing budgetary constraints. Given that the
mission of these nonprofits is for the public good, society as a whole would also benefit
through safeguarded lands, cleaner water, protected species, and healthier economies.

Michigan State University, its professors, and its students would also benefit from
a successful natural resource based nonprofit program. The reputation and prestige
garnered from pioneering this program would gain nationwide attention and dovetail

nicely with the University’s many other natural resource based programs and public

policy initiatives. The university would attract and retain more students interested in

12

nonprofit careers, particularly in the NRB field. With a core curriculum established, it
would also be much easier to address the needs of other nonprofit subsectors, and the
goal of a broad and diffuse university program or actual stand-alone nonprofit center
could be established.

Perhaps most importantly, such a program would help Michigan State in meeting
its obligation as a Land Grant University by providing education for the public good and
not just the privileged few. It seems particularly appropriate that a school with such
historic ties to the land could now help to sow the seeds for the very organizations that
are needed to continue the environmental safeguarding of our forests, wetlands, prairies,

lakes and streams.’

13

CHAPTER ENDNOTES

 

' President Bush’s faith based initiative was in jeopardy even before the events of September 11'“ due to
concerns from the right over govemmentally attached strings and from the left over questions about the
division of church and state. Whatever form is eventually passed will likely be watered down considerably
from its original version, although America’s increasing religiousness since September I 1‘" could
potentially turn the issue around. Regardless of the outcome it still serves as an excellent example of how
government is looking to outsource services to nonprofit organizations.

2 501c3 and 501c4 refers to an IRS classification system that helps to distinguish the various nonprofits.
These two in particular refer to the types of organizations that the general public most readily associates
with nonprofits, and includes such groups as the Nature Conservancy and the Sierra Club. 50103 and
501c4 groups do not include churches, hospitals, libraries, schools, unions, or the myriad of other
organization that make up the sector. In 1997 Michigan had roughly 24,000 IRS classed 501c3 and 501c4
organizations, as well as 2800 501c5 organizations (labor, agricultural, and horticultural) (Skene, 2000).

3 Putnam draws a distinction between many community groups, which are in decline, and nonprofit
organizations, which are seeing their ranks of dues paying yet uninvolved members swell. Much of this has
to do with an exchange of money for time, with today’s public putting a premium on scarce leisure
opportunities. While this may not be a problem for all nonprofits, it is particularly problematic for those
that rely on volunteers for staffing.

4 Although some governmental units may argue that they have value laden issues as well, most Americans
no longer see government employment as the way to “make a difference” in the world like they did during
the days of President Kennedy. Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the Monica Lewinsky scandal have all played
a role in this regard, and the nonprofit sector is becoming the vehicle of choice for doing good deeds with
less political constraints (Komacki, 2001). Like many things, this has started to change after the events of
September 11'”, which have seen increasing trust in government and interest in government employment. It
is too soon to tell if this is a trend that will last.

5 “Membership in NACC requires that a center be a formally organized unit within a university in the
United States, with a director, with a research component in its program, and a substantial explicit emphasis
on the study of nonprofit organizations.” (Young, 1998: 122)

6 Langton referred to these nonprofits as environmental and conservation groups, which are collectively
referred to as natural resource based [NRB] organizations in this thesis. See the preface for details.

7 Jon Roush worked with Snow (1992) when The Conservation Fund supported Snow’s research into NRB
nonprofit leadership.

8 While private. public, and other nonprofit leaders have to deal with these issues as well, for
environmental leaders they tend to be pervasive and ubiquitous as opposed to organizationally specific and
intermittent.

9 This tradition goes far back at Michigan State. In 1938 the WK. Kellogg Foundation financed 1,675

scholarships to attend the then Michigan State College and its agricultural short courses. These focused on
farming, civic responsibility, and leadership skills (Van Buren, I990).

14

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

The extant literature was reviewed to find information on the educational needs of
NRB nonprofit managers and their relevancy to the creation of university level NRB
program. This yielded little in the way of specific data for a variety of reasons. Research
efforts in the nonprofit sector are relatively young, with earliest attempts occurring only
as far back as the 19705 (Hall, 1995). Efforts have also been limited by available
resources for such work, as “funding for research on nonprofit organizations has been
dwarfed by funding for studies of just about every other organization known to human
kind” (Light, 2000289). Another reason that information was not found on NRB
nonprofit education is that much of the effort to create educational opportunities for
nonprofit organizations have been of the “generic” variety, geared towards creating
managers who can work in the sector as a whole.

Without such specific data, the literature review focuses on two related areas. The
first section looks at issues relating to nonprofit management education programs in
general, starting with an exploration from the field’s beginnings and ending with an
analysis of their current program offerings. The second section examines the history of
NRB nonprofits in Michigan to gain insight into how the characteristics of the sector

might affect the curricular needs of a NRB nonprofit management education program.

1) Nonprofit Management Education Programs
Nonprofit management programs first began to come into existence at the

university level in the early 1980’s (Hall, 1995). Most of the available literature on the

15

topic has come from the proceedings of two conferences hosted by the University of San
Francisco’s Institute for Nonprofit Organization Management, one in1986 and another in
1996. The papers presented at these conferences resulted in the publication of two books,
“Educating Managers of Nonprofit Organizations” (O’Neill and Young, 1988), and
“Nonprofit Management Education, US. and World Perspectives” (O’Neill and Fletcher,
1998). The findings of these two conferences offer an opportunity to analyze both the

initial foundational tenets of the field and how they have evolved over time.

First conference. 1986
Reflective of the burgeoning nature of the field, the first meeting consisted of only
fifty participants and the presentation of ten papers. O’Neill and Young (1988: 18)
described one of its purposes:
In a sense the entire conference was about the curriculum issue, including whether
there could or should be a separate nonprofit education curriculum and, if so,
what it should be. Our thesis throughout has been that the characteristics of
nonprofit organizations and the characteristics of nonprofit organization
management must be the dominant force shaping any curriculum to meet the
needs of these managers.
There was general agreement among the conference participants that the nonprofit sector
was truly different as compared to those of government and business, and that a
significant need existed for nonprofit management education programs to address their
differing educational requirements. The exact form these nonprofit programs were to
take was not as clear, however.
Some participants saw rationale for the creation of “generic” nonprofit programs

that prepared managers for careers in the nonprofit sector as a whole (Cook, 1988; Cyert,

1988; DiMaggio, 1988). In advocating this, Cyert (1988) draws parallels to the past

16

experiences of business schools, which up until World War II had been highly specialized
by individual industries. It soon became apparent that “management was management”,
however, and discipline based business schools came to be preferred. Economics was
also seen as a factor, as only the largest of schools could afford to have a wide variety of
subsector specializations. DiMaggio (1988) also pointed to academia’s uncertainty over
“what nonprofit managers really need to know”, noting that highly specialized programs
might lack the flexibility to change within the industry’s dynamic operational
environment. From an employee perspective, the nonprofit sector typically has short and
slow moving career ladders, decreasing the likelihood that all students are able to get jobs
in their preferred areas. Without broad, generic training, it would be easy for them to
become trapped and pigeonholed.

These same researchers also saw reasons for potential specializations within
nonprofit education. DiMaggio (1988) points to the many different sizes, technologies,
and external operating environments of the organizations within the sector. O’Neill and
Young (1988) felt that size-related diversity was perhaps the most provocative of these
areas, and felt that separate management programs based on size might be needed. Cook
(1988) argued that separate schools based on size was not practical, but did see
significant differences in the requisite skills of small and large nonprofits. Smaller
nonprofits were overall determined to be harder to manage because they could not afford
to hire specialists like accountants and fundraisers, instead having to rely on individual
managers who possessed a broad set of skills. Slavin (1988) also saw highly variable
missions, cultures, languages, and protocols as important differences among nonprofits

that would make generic nonprofit management education difficult. Such programs

17

might only be able to train “operational” managers, who would have difficulty dealing
with professional employees who resented being evaluated by those untrained and
unsympathetic to their specific programmatic missions. Cyert (1988) acknowledges that
some areas (e. g., hospitals, education, social work) were indeed too specialized to require
only generalized nonprofit training.

A general sentiment emerged that training should ideally be generic wherever
possible, but that the nonprofit sector would still require more specialized programs and
subsector specific coursework than typical business or governmental schools due to its
heterogeneity. According to O’Neill and Young (198822),

...the diversity of nonprofits argues for increased attention to the educational
question: the nonprofit sectors contains organizations not only in the arts,
education, health care, social work, and religion - the few non-profit related
disciplines whose schools pay serious attention to administration - but also in a
myriad of other fields such as advocacy, research, community development, trade
associations, and foundations. The fact that such organizations fall not only
outside the business and government sectors but also outside the ‘mainline’
nonprofit disciplines appears to argue for a more comprehensive approach to
nonprofit management education.

Another area of general agreement from the conference was the need to develop
programs to meet the educational needs of the local nonprofit community (Mirabella and
Wish, 1999; O’Neill and Young, 1988). Levy (1988: 29) added,

A critical ingredient for the success of almost any such endeavor must be the
capacity to connect meaningfully with nonprofit institutions and to satisfy
concerns articulated by their leadership. For it is they that are the sources of
employment for graduating students, the living laboratories for student learning
and, given their training needs and expertise, an important market to tap both for
tuition subsidy and part—time faculty. The success of many business schools in
offering MBAs and executive education programs is attributable in no small
measure to their strong linkages with the local, regional, or national corporate
community. Nothing less is needed for a set of authentic, mutually advantageous
interactions with the third sector organizations.

18

Second conference, 1996

The second conference was much larger, with 125 participants coming from
fourteen different nations. The number of nonprofit programs across the country and
around the world had increased substantially, and the amount of research began to
increase with it. While the conference hosts cautioned that the sector was still a “very
new and evolving field” (O’Neill and Fletcher, 1998:13), it was also evident that things
were considerably farther along than they had been in 1986. More than three times as
many papers were presented, differing substantially in focus and scope. Many of the
central ideas brought about in the first conference were expanded on as well.

One tenet was that great diversity existed within the nonprofit sector, diversity
that allowed for specialization in smaller programs who could not afford to cater to the
individual needs of the entire nonprofit sector. Many also felt that curriculum should be
driven by, at least in part, by the characteristics of nonprofit organizations themselves,
their managers, and their leadership concerns. Tschirhart (1998: 61) addressed these
issues in “Nonprofit Management Education: Recommendations Drawn from Three
Stakeholder Groups”:

...no nonprofit management education program can hope to cover all aspects of

the field. . .resource constraints and the breadth of the skills and knowledge

relevant to management require tradeoffs in program offerings. Therefore,
priorities need to be established in designing a nonprofit management education
program. Understanding the perceived needs and practices of key stakeholders
can help in determining these priorities.

The stakeholder groups in Tschirhart’s (1998) study were nonprofit managers, students,

and faculty. The survey asked participants to “evaluate the importance of 32 knowledge

and skill areas that might be taught as part of a nonprofit management program”

19

(Tschirhart, 1998:62). Looking specifically at the manager group, 53 executive directors
or their designated employees participated from a wide variety of nonprofits in the
Bloomington, Indiana area.

The findings for the managers showed a clear preference for certain skills and
knowledge areas. Ratings were assessed on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being not at all
important and 5 being very important. Their top five choices and mean scores were
leadership (4.85), ethics and values (4.79), long-term planning (4.64), financial
management (4.58), and conducting eflective meetings (4.57). History of philanthropy
(2.52) came in last. These findings were seen as an important informational source for
guiding appropriate curriculum, and were also useful in that they sometimes revealed
stark differences with the preferences of other stakeholders. Faculty ranked leadership
(4.22) at only 11‘”, choosing instead fundraising (4.56) as their number one.
Organizational mission development (4.50) was tied for their 2"d choice, which managers
had ranked at 25‘h (3.89). Students ranked creativity (4.76) as their first choice,
interpersonal skills (4.48) as their 3rd, collaboration and networking (4.45) as their 4‘“,
and public relations (4.44) as their 5‘“. Several of these differences reached statistical
significance (p505).

Based on the wide range of nonprofits included in the study its specific results are
only indirectly relevant to the needs of NRB nonprofit organizations being considered
here. Lobbying, for example, consistently ranked near the bottom among all three
stakeholder groups, either due to beliefs that it is illegal (Smucker, 1999) or because the
managers’ missions were unrelated to advocacy work. That is not likely to have been the

case for organizations that are oriented towards social change. This suggests two things.

20

First, a caution that stakeholder perception are only that. Perceptions. And as such they
can sometimes be wildly wrong (as in the case of the legality of nonprofit lobbying).
What is perhaps more important in this context, however, is the fact that a nonprofit
management program might have failed in properly addressing the needs of the managers
themselves if only faculty or administration input had been used in designing the
curriculum.

This is an important finding, as research reveals that the needs of nonprofits, their
managers, and their employees are frequently considered less important compared to
other stakeholders. Young (1998) surveyed 24 university members of the Nonprofit
Academic Centers Council, asking them to prioritize their stakeholders. Students,
funders, faculty, alumni, administration, nonprofits and “write-ins” were all allowed.
“Within the top three priorities, the most frequently cited stakeholder group was students
(18), followed by university administration (16), faculty (between 11 and 13, depending
on the interpretation of “researchers” and “academic community”), funders (10),
community nonprofits (9), and national nonprofits (6)” (Young, 1998:122). Mirabella
and Wish (2000) cite similar work by Light (1999) that found that significant gaps
existed between the skills taught in public policy graduate programs and the skills the
new employees found they really needed when they entered into the workforce. These
included such potentially relevant skills as ethics, leadership, and conflict management.

As part of the second conference, Wish and Mirabella (1998) also examined the
many curriculums of the burgeoning nonprofit management education field. They found
these programs housed in a wide variety of schools and departments (e.g., business,

public policy, social work, stand-alone centers). Curriculums varied as well, with MBA

21

based programs focusing more on the internal organizational environment of nonprofits
(e.g., human resources, financial management). Those based in MPA programs were
more likely to address the external environment as well (e.g., fundraising, philanthropy),
although they were sometimes lacking in general business areas. Brudney and Stringer
(1998) also saw volunteer management as a widely neglected course offering. The
interdisciplinary centers and some of the larger MPA programs offered the broadest array
of courses. The fact that the MBA, MPA, and MSW programs tinged their curricular
content to meet their dominant departmental paradigms was seen as a potential area of
concern. This was not as frequently the case with the stand-alone centers, although their
offerings tended to be generic in that they often taught management as a discipline and

failed to incorporate the requisite values of the nonprofit sector (Milofsky, 1996).

Consequent criticisms and resmnses

Milofosky (1996) leveled these charges in an editorial on the proceedings of the
second conference. He felt that the programs continued to teach nonprofit leaders older
management paradigms more relevant to for—profits firms, such as those espoused by
Weber. These ignored the driving passions and ideologies of employees who were
motivated by more than money. But if the creation of “old school” managers was not
desirable, neither were programs that produced only esoteric research of limited practical
use to the sector:

...the old division between academic knowledge and practical training does not

work anymore. . .We are training neither ivory tower analysts nor administrative

technicians. Instead, we imagine a cadre of free thinking intellectuals with a
commitment to and involvement in practical action (Milofosky, 1996:281).

22

Billitteri (1997) also criticizes the “esoteric” research produced by these programs, and
Eisenberg (1999: 40) contends that the programs are creating only “. . .managers and
technicians, and not organizational leaders - that is, people with vision, a feeling for the
dynamics of public policy and politics, and the capacity to inspire their colleagues”. In
his opinion this was due to a lack of real world nonprofit executives in the ranks of
adjunct faculty. He also criticized the dearth of programs offering courses that dealt with
nonprofits’ external environment (e.g., coalition building, community leadership, public-
policy advocacy, grass roots organizing, government and business sector
interrelationships). A curricular survey of nonprofit management offerings shows that
the majority of courses taught by these programs revolve around the internal environment
of nonprofit organizations (Mirabella and Wish, 2000). This was the case regardless of
the department that the programs were housed in.
Frequency and Focus of Available Coursework (by Department)
adapted from Mirabella and Wish (2000:225)
M. MILA MSW SA_C‘

External Environment Courses

Philanthropy & the third sector 7% 14% 9% 17%
Advocacy, public policy & community organizing l 8 37 8
Fundraising, marketing & public relations 16 8 5 19

Internal Environment Courses

Internal management skills 42 34 27 22
Financial management 13 10 5 7
Human resource management 16 8 5 19

Environment Spanning Courses
Legal issues 2 4 l 5

Strategic planning 5 4 0 2

(columns may not add up to 100% due to additional coursework offered)
’SAC = “stand alone center” of nonprofit management education

23

In the case of advocacy coursework in particular, it is noteworthy that only 1% of
any classes taught within MBA based nonprofit programs dealt with such issues as
grassroots organizing and public policy. MSW based programs had the bulk of their
coursework here, yet only devoted 5% of their coursework to fundraising, marketing, or
public relations. The MPA and stand-alone centers offered more of a balance in this
regard, but still spent the majority of their coursework on internal environment issues.

Focus groups done in follow-up to this curricular survey showed that the majority
of professors and alumni felt that the departmental location of their programs was
superior to those of others (Mirabella and Wish, 2000), perhaps suggesting a
philosophical inculcation that permeated the programs. Many respondents chose an
interdisciplinary combination of degrees as their first or second choice, however,
indicating that not everyone is satisfied with the current formats of these programs.

Mirabella and Wish (1999) also saw value in identifying the skill competencies
the nonprofits saw as valuable, both for use in developing educational programs and then
in evaluating their impact on nonprofit graduates and their organizations. Mirabella and
Wish (19992331) called attention specifically to the work of Mary Stewart Hall and
others whose efforts have “focused on the determination of target skills, knowledge, and
abilities necessary for effective nonprofit administration”. Mary Hall’s (1994) work was
used specifically to develop the nonprofit field’s first competency based curriculum at
Seattle University, a method that the school continues to use in updating their program
content (Hall, 2002). Focus groups from Hall’s (1994) original research were comprised
largely of nonprofit leaders, and their input was used to determine a set of seven core

competencies that represent the requisite skills of successful nonprofit managers:

24

0 Employ the use of effective personal and interpersonal behaviors (e. g., self
awareness, the engenderrnent of trust, accountability, communication skills)

0 Create vision and establish direction (e.g., mission statements, innovative
programming, strategic planning)

0 Manage the organization (e. g., budgets, finances, risk)

0 Create and maintain a client focus (e. g., respect, credibility, need
identification)

° Build a diverse and effective workforce (e.g., teamwork, leadership
cultivation, volunteer management)

0 Encourage external cooperation (e.g., mutual understanding, public relations,
collaboration)

' Develop resources (e.g., entrepreneurship, market analysis, funding diversity)

Current program considerations and curricular offerings

The WK. Kellogg Foundation has been an active funder in research on nonprofit
education programs, and seeks to link nonprofit practice and academic knowledge
through its “Building Bridges” initiative (www.Centerpointinstitute.org/Bridges/
index.htrn). Launched in 1997, it is looking at several issues, one of which is to see how
new nonprofit programs are being developed. It has followed ten universities as they
have gone through the process of creating such programs, and after five years has
identified several trends that bear consideration here:

0 The impetus for creating such programs often came from faculty and
administrators, not from students and practitioners.

' Universities have relied on relationship building strategies both internally and
externally to help get their programs off the ground.

° The relationship between the program and the community has focused more on
information dispensing than co—leaming.

' Programs tended to become more comprehensive over time.

25

While some of these trends are encouraging, two run counter to the tenet of
nonprofit involvement established during the University of San Francisco conferences: 1)
a lack of local nonprofit involvement, in the beginning impetus stage, and 2) a lack of co-
learning, that potentially results in cookie cutter technical assistance approaches of little
true value to nonprofits.

The web sites of some of the nonprofit education programs that took part in the
Building Bridges initiative were explored to gain information on the form and structure
of their programs. These included Case Western Reserve, Harvard University, Indiana
University, and Western Michigan University. Rankings by US. News and World
Report (2001) and faculty reputation from the literature reviews were also used to select
additional programs for investigation. Harvard University, Indiana University at
Bloomington, and Seton Hall University were ranked 1", 2"“, and 5lh respectively as the
best graduate schools with public affairs specialties in nonprofit management. The
University of Michigan, Grand Valley State, and Oakland University were also selected
due to their geographic proximity to Michigan State. Seattle University was chosen for
its competency based curriculum, and the University of San Francisco was included for
its role in hosting the nonprofit management education conferences.

While by no means comprehensive, the web sites of theselO programs still
contained information of interest. Programs were housed in a variety of settings and
offered a broad array of degrees: MPA, MBA, MSW, Ph.D., and certificates. Most were
roughly two years in duration, although credit requirements indicated that they may take
slightly longer. Some required the completion of a research paper while others referred to

a variety of other “capstone” courses, learning papers, policy analysis exercises,

26

comprehensive exams, or real world projects. For programs that were designed for
students already at work in the nonprofit field, these included projects for the actual
organizations they worked for. Evening, weekend, and intemet courses were also offered
to help these working students. Small class sizes or regional focuses were sometimes
stressed. Opportunities for networking were frequently mentioned, and in some cases
students went through the program as a sequential cohort group.

References were made to a variety of factors that stressed the practical nature of
the programs. These included the use of nonprofit executives as adjunct faculty, efforts
to put theory into practice, the flexibility to customize (except in the cases of cohort
groups), and intemship/service learning opportunities. Despite the criticisms of previous
authors, several courses were found dealing with volunteer recruitment and retention,
ethics, leadership, intergovernmental relations, advocacy, organizing, collaboration, and
entrepreneurship, although they were not found in all programs.

Efforts were also made to identify programs that were housed exclusively in
colleges or departments of natural resources within these ten schools. None were
specifically found, although the University of Michigan offers the Corporate
Environmental Management Program (CEMP), which offers a joint degree, three year
program where students earn both a Masters of Business Administration and a Masters in
Natural Resources and the Environment. Harvard offers top ranked environmental policy
courses, and Indiana University offers environmental science, chemistry, and engineering
courses within their policy program as well. Without further information it is difficult to
tell how successful these programs are in creating NRB nonprofit leaders. The

University of Michigan’s CEMP is held in high regard, “although it appears to lend itself

27

more towards the for-profit end and not nonprofits per se” (Roush, 2002). Although its
website (www.umich.edu/~cemp/) advertises that “the program equips leaders,
executives, and managers - whether they work in the private sector of for an
environmental nonprofit organization”, it is a joint degree program with the School of
Business and may suffer from a “management is management” predilection and
shortcomings in “external environment” coursework. The web review found no courses
that specifically mentioned nonprofits, and none that would appear to deal with lobbying,
advocacy, or grassroots organizing. An inquiry sent to the program on the matter was not

returned.

Summary

In summary, the rapidly growing field of nonprofit management education has
experienced significant growth over the past two decades. Opinions continue to differ as
to the best place to house such programs and the amount of subsector specialization they
should entail, although some general agreement has been found in addressing the needs
of local nonprofit communities. Criticisms have been leveled against the sector claiming
that many of these programs are producing only internally focused technical business
managers, although the most recent literature and explorations of current programs show
that these deficiencies are starting to be addressed, at least in intent. Natural resource
schools are beginning to more adequately address administrative needs, although few if

any are focusing exclusively on the needs of NRB nonprofit organizations.

28

2) NRB Nonprofits in Michigan and the Nation

A brief examination of the NRB nonprofit sector in Michigan is warranted for
several reasons. Primary of these is a need to explore the potentially unique
characteristics of NRB nonprofit organizations themselves, especially when one
considers that the available literature on nonprofit management program creation has
focused on the issues of “generic” nonprofit degrees or other unrelated areas of
specialization. The importance of partnering with the local nonprofit community has also
been highlighted, not only to ensure the financial sustainability of the program (Levy,
1988) but to increase the program’s impact on the effectiveness of the local nonprofit
community (Mirabella and Wish, 1999).

This local focus allows professors to move from spectators to participants in the
nonprofit community, an important consideration to students who are attracted to
programs with strong specializations and linkages to the nonprofit sector (Larson and
Wilson, 2001). Most of these students are already employed in the sector and seek
programs that are close to home, so there is also opportunity for comprehensive local
student/employer/university linkages. This puts Michigan NRB nonprofits, and mid-
Michigan based NRB nonprofits in particular, at the forefront of interest. It does not
preclude the use of a national scope however, as some out of state students may be
interested in taking classes, particularly those that have not yet started working the field.
In many cases, what is taking place in the national NRB nonprofit sector will also be

reflected in Michigan.

29

Early days in Michigan

The influence of voluntary NRB organizations has a long and distinctive history
within the State. With an early foundation in hunting and conservation, such groups
began to take prominent hold as early as 1875 with the creation of the Michigan
Sportsmen’s Association, which sought to educate legislators and the general public on
conservation issues (Dempsey, 2001). The Michigan Audubon Society was later formed
in 1904, joining The Michigan Foresz Association and a growing number of other such
organizations at the very beginnings of the twentieth century. Pioneer conservationist
William Mershon was a driving force behind many of these groups, noting in 1910 that:

The pine forests no longer stretch from here to the straits of Mackinaw. They are

gone. The countless flocks of pigeons that you all remember in the early days, that

darken our skies no more. Michigan at one time teemed with elk. . .The Michigan

Association. . .stands for the betterment of life out doors; for the protection of wild

things, the increase in wild life (quoted in Dempsey, 2001: 37).

These groups succeeded in conservation efforts chiefly by influencing citizens
and organizing with such seemingly unrelated groups as the Federation of Women’s
Clubs and the Automobile Club of Michigan. NRB organizations continued to grow in
both size and number, and in 1937 many of them came together to form the 6,000
member Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC). The Michigan Parks
Association was later formed in the19505, and The Michigan Chapter of the Sierra Club
took root soon after that in 1964. Typical of the coalition building nature that had

become inherent to the sector, the three organizations successfully lobbied for the

creation of the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in 1970.

30

Growth and change

Michigan was at the forefront when a change in the conservation movement
occurred that same year, signaled by the creation of Earth Day. The movement continued
its focus on land and wildlife management, but a new generation became more concerned
with the effects of pollution on the State’s air and water supplies as well (Dempsey,
2001). Environmental groups with local ties such as the Environmental Defense Fund
successfully teamed with state agency director Ralph MacMullan to address the growing
threat of pesticide use and the eventual ban of DDT. These grassroots volunteer groups,
such as the West Michigan Environmental Action Council (WMEAC), began to grow
and hire their first professional staff in the early 19705. Thus started their transformation
of these newer entrants from community based volunteer movements to official statewide
nonprofit organizations:

Representatives fanned out across the state, encouraging the formation of other

regional councils comprising the League of Women Voters, Jaycees, PTAs,

garden clubs, churches, and labor unions. These councils were crucial in
convincing elected and appointed government officials that a large, diverse
constituency wanted environmental cleanup and was closely watching their

performance (Dempsey, 2001 : 164).

WMEAC proved instrumental in the passage of such landmark legislation as the
Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) in 1970 and the founding of the
Michigan Environmental Council (MEC) in 1980 (Browne et. al, 1995). MEC was
created as an umbrella organization due in part to the small sizes and limited resources of
these newer NRB organizations, which despite their growing memberships still relied on
only a handful of volunteers and staff to do the majority of the work. Indeed, data from

Snow (1992) shows that the median size of a NRB nonprofit is just 4.5 full time staff

members.

31

The more conservation oriented MUCC was still a strong umbrella organization
in its own right, and had been successful in helping to pass Michigan’s “Bottle Bill” on
returnable beverage containers just prior to the creation of MEC. There were now two
effective umbrella organizations in Michigan, representing the interests of both
conservationists and environmentalists alike. Their combined prominence in the years of
the Reagan Presidency set the tone for the continued battles of today that increasingly pit
NRB organizations against the environmental policies of both the State and Federal
government. Since that time neither Governor Blanchard nor Governor Engler made the
environment a priority in their heavily industrialized state (Dempsey, 2001). Many
conflicts hinged upon differences in scientific opinion and local knowledge (Fischer,
2000). The use of normative values and the employment of the “precautionary principle”
in matters of technology, risk assessment, and risk management were typical of these
disagreements (Ostrander, unpublished paper).

Regional and international environmental concerns also started to become more of
a consideration for NRB nonprofits (Rosenbaum, 1998). Foreign species in the Great
Lakes, trash imported from Canada, tribal fishing rights, and the effects of the automobile
industry on global warming are all areas of concern for Michigan’s local nonprofits. At
the same time more governmental decisions are being made at the state and local level
(Snow, 1992). This has meant that the role of NRB nonprofits has become more
important at the local level, while at the same time they have had to expand the
geographical scope of the problems they are facing. According to Snow (1992), it is
these local nonprofits at the state level that are experiencing the most difficulty in

organizing and institutionalization. Many continue to be run by all volunteer staffs that

32

attempt to lobby and press for change with little formal knowledge of the political
process.

In addition to advocacy and lobbying efforts, NRB nonprofits in Michigan
employed other strategies during this time as well. Such organizations as the Michigan
Wildlife Habitat Foundation and Urban Options looked to directly stimulate the public to
restore habitat and make wise energy choices. In 1974 The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
opened its Michigan office and began to purchase large tracks of undeveloped land. This
mission was much less confrontational than those of many other prominent NRB
nonprofits, and the TNC became an active partner with State and private groups who
could not afford to purchase land entirely on their own. This has resulted in the
protection of more than 75,000 acres through 1999 alone, although not everyone in State
government is happy with the results:

The resistance of. . .some in the Department of Natural Resources to protection of

sensitive lands reflected the century old divide between the ‘sustained yield’

philosophy of Gifford Pinchot and the belief that wild places had an intrinsic as

well as scientific value, first popularized by Jon Muir (Dempsey, 2001: 219).
Rifts within the sector

Such philosophical differences also serve to highlight some of the problems that
Michigan NRB nonprofits have faced despite all of their successes. Conservationists and
preservationists have often differed on their approaches towards wildlife and land
management (with some arguing for no management at all). Recent legal battles pitting
MUCC against the Sierra Club over federal funding, MEPA, and the use of aspen habitat
serve as a good case in point (Michigan Out of Doors, 2002). Such infighting has been

mirrored at the national level, where committees formed by the larger NRB nonprofits

33

have been able to reach broad consensus but are then afraid to publicly show solidarity
due to differences on hunting issues (Norton, 1991).

This rift has also occurred along racial lines (Kline, 1997; Shabecoff, 1993).
There has been a growing perception that the more institutionalized NRB nonprofits are
unfocused on the needs of minority communities and are run almost exclusively by
Caucasians. According to Shabecoff (1993: 233),

Unlike the national groups, whose staffs are mostly white, well-educated,

relatively affluent middle-class professionals, the membership at the grass roots

cuts across class, racial, political, and educational lines. Workers who live in the
shadow of smokestacks or within smelling distance of waste dumps are the most
active members of these groups. Also unlike the mainstream organizations, the
local anti-pollution fighters are more often than not led by women. Where the
national groups are prone to settle their differences through compromise, the
grass-roots groups usually will settle for nothing less than complete victory
because the health of their children. . .is on the line.
In 1990 tensions reached the point where such minority groups formally accused eight of
the largest national NRB nonprofits of outright racism in their hiring practices (Kline,
1997). These NRB nonprofits have made efforts to address the problem, although many
critics argue that nothing of a substantive nature has changed and that many larger NRB
nonprofits are still out of touch and too bureaucratic.

Despite their many victories, the “mainstreaming” of the environmental
movement is seen as a potential area of concern for other reasons. Deemed as the price to
pay for success by some, others point to a “professionalization” of the sector that focuses
too much effort on internal organizational concerns and not enough on their
programmatic missions (Rosenbaum, 1998). A former National Audubon Society

magazine editor said,

There’s tremendous competition out there for money. . .And we’ve gotten top
heavy with bureaucrats and accountants and fund-raisers who are all good

34

professionals - but I don’t think you would catch them sloshing through the
marsh” (quoted in Rosenbaum, 1998:38).

Shabecoff (1993: 261) adds that many environmentalists fear that:
...the professionalization of environmental groups was robbing them of the
passion and moral zeal that had infused them with a sense of mission after Earth
Day. They wondered if environmentalism was becoming just another career and
its cadre was growing to resemble the corporate executives and government
officials with whom they were supposed to be doing battle.
Hjelmar (l996:2) feels this is associated with the extent to which the organizations want
to work within the existing system:
[A movement identity] is conceived here as a form of ideology which aims at
challenging the political order by making fundamental social issues the subject of
discussion. [A pressure group] is defined as an ideology which accepts the
political order and sees the role of the organization as one of seeking influence
through conventional channels. These forms of identity can vary, of course, from
one historical epoque to another.
It has thus become increasingly difficult for NRB nonprofits to balance such things as
ideology with contextual strategy, and driving passions with sound business practices.
This has led to conflict not just among different NRB nonprofits but also within
these same organizations as well. A case in point is the split between the National
Audubon Society (NAS) and the Michigan Audubon Society (MAS). The result of
increasingly divergent philosophical bearings, N AS formally cut off all funding to MAS
in 2001 and forced them to file suit for continued use of the Audubon name. Such
disagreements can easily occur when nonprofits are comprised of a variety of chapters
that must balance central organization with local autonomy (Grossman and Rangan,
2001).

The mastering of such multiple and diverse issues has created a need for strong

and effective NRB managers, and the majority of Michigan’s most effective

35

environmental initiatives have had charismatic leaders (Dempsey, 2001). Charisma is not
always enough, however, especially when these leaders leave, and the grooming of
effective organizational managers is seen as an important consideration for the
sustainability of the movement (Snow, 1992; Langton, 1984). Is succession adequately
addressed in these NRB nonprofits?

The late Torn Washington of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs serves as
good case in point. Largely seen as the driving force behind the success of the
organization, he never the less paid little attention to how the organization would function
after he was gone. When someone once asked him to see MUCC’s organizational chart,
Washington’s reply was “Why the hell do we need that? I am the organizational chart!”
(Dempsey, 2001:180). He thus paid little attention to nurturing his successor, although to
his credit he did bring former staff member Rick Jameson back into the organization in
the late 19805. Things were still largely considered a one man show however when
tragedy struck, and both Washington and Jameson died in the latel9905. MUCC was left
in a lurch and crippled for quite some time (Dempsey, 2001). The success of other
Michigan NRB umbrella organizations has also been due in no small part to the glue of
their leaders. One is left to wonder how such groups as the Michigan Environmental
Council or Earth Share of Michigan would fare if such leaders as Lana Pollack (MEC) or
Dennis Fijalkowski (ESM) retired or left the state.

Several issues thus threaten the eclectic network of NRB nonprofits in Michigan
as the movement struggles to define who they are, what they want to achieve, and how
they want to achieve it. Retaining their individual identities and focus while moving

forward as a coalition remains difficult, although significant strides have been made. The

36

Conservation News Network hosted organized meetings of diverse NRB nonprofits from
across the state in 2000 and 2001. The Environmental Fund of Michigan also grew into
Earth Share of Michigan, serving as an umbrella organization for the joint fundraising

efforts of a variety of NRB nonprofit organizations.

Characteristics of the sector and its membership

 

Recent tallies put the number of environmental nonprofits in Michigan at 100
(Skene, 2000), although it would seem that this number fails to reflect the true number of
organizations since the same figures point to 470 affiliated clubs under the MUCC _
umbrella alone. It also fails to take into account the potentially hundreds of additional
small voluntary NRB organizations that have not chosen to formally incorporate as
nonprofits. Nationally, it is estimated that over 10,000 environmental organizations exist
on the national, state, and local levels (Rosenbaum, 1998). Considering that Michigan
ranks ninth in number of total nonprofit organizations nationwide (Skene, 2000), it seems
more than plausible that the natural resource rich “Great Lakes State” would have a
healthy share of these 10,000 organizations. Although only a rough proxy, a nationwide
study (Snow, 1992) that attempted to balance geographic diversity included more NRB
organizations from Michigan than 45 other states.

The environmental sector is growing as well, with IRS tax return information
showing the number of environmental organizations nationwide increasing at a rate of
55% from 1993 to 1998, the highest increase for organizations required to report (Skene,
2000). What is unclear however is if this growth represents an increasing enthusiasm for
environmental causes or a dissatisfaction for the ones currently in operation, as many

membership ranks plateaued during the 19905 (Rosenbaum, 1998). This has interestingly

37

occurred at a time of increasing support for the environment among the general public
(Kempton, Boster, and Hartley, 1995), including the people of Michigan (League of
Conservation Voters, 2000). Rosenbaum (1998) questions just how deep the general
public’s support really is however, and warns that the American people may be tiring of a
“crisis style” of NRB communication that fails to differentiate between minor problems
and real emergencies. This fear may have been realized, as Kline (1997) sees apathy due
to a growing sentiment among the public that the major environmental battles have
already been won. Shabecoff (1993) on the other hand wonders if the plateauing
membership of major N RB nonprofits is due to dissatisfaction among former Earth Day
idealists. He sees a disconnect between large NRB nonprofits and an unenergized
grassroots, a connection that will have to be restored for the movement to be successful.
Some of the larger groups have realized this, and Shabecoff (1993) outlines how
they are attempting to reconnect with the passions of the original 19705 movement. But
trying to create passion through the employment of emotional rhetoric has been criticized
as well: Ken Sikkema, former leader of the West Michigan Environmental Action
Council and current State Senator said,
You should never compromise your principles, but you have to be willing to
compromise nonessentials. I think the environmental community doesn’t
understand that, or has no nonessentials on its list. They let a philosophical
position get in the way of good environmental policy. In the environment of
Lansing, nobody can get everything they want (Dempsey, 2001:286)
How NRB nonprofit organizations should package their messages and determine their
strategies is something that can not be answered here, but it is clear that finding a solution

should be a top priority for the movement. Michigan’s NRB nonprofits were seen as

generally ineffectual in influencing policy in the19905 (Dempsey, 2001).

38

The combined assets of Michigan environmental nonprofits are listed at $137
million, relatively meager compared to other nonprofit subsectors (Skene 2000). 1999
figures for Michigan based foundation distributions shows that they gave only 3.5% of
their grants to environmental/animal groups. Government grants have not been a
traditional source of income for most NRB nonprofits either, so Michigan’s NRB
nonprofits will probably have to get the majority of their funding through the general
public. National figures from 1998 show only 12.4% of total households donating money
to environmental nonprofits, representing just 3.2% of total household donations but up
from 1.6% in 1989 (Independent Sector, 2001). Increasing this giving level and finding
ways to diversity revenue sources will be an important area of consideration.

Looking at volunteer rates (Independent Sector, 2001), 9.2% of people who did
any volunteering spent at least some of their time with environmental groups, up from
6.3% in 1989. This number was just 3% for seniors over the age of 55, indicating that
environmental volunteers are somewhat younger in age. Snow (1992) found the average
volunteer leader to be a male, while Shabecoff (1993) felt that that there were more

women in the smaller volunteer groups at the grassroots level.

Summm

In summary, both the strengths and weaknesses of Michigan’s NRB community
lie in its ability to collaborate, form coalitions, and energize the general public. When
they have done so they have been largely successful; when infighting has distracted them
they have failed. The small sizes of many of these organizations means there is only a
small pool of prospective managers in place when leaders leave, making the

organizations vulnerable in times of transition. Despite great public support in Michigan

39

for the environment, most households continue to give a proportionately larger amount of
their money and time to other nonprofit organizations. Although highly successful in the
19705 and 19805, Michigan’s NRB nonprofits have been characterized as largely
ineffectual during the last decade (Dempsey, 2001). How effective they are in the new
millennium will depend greatly on the effectiveness of their managers in leading their

organizations.

40

CHAPTER THREE

STUDY METHODOLOGY

As set forth in Chapter One, the following research question was defined:

What form and content should a specialized program in NRB

nonprofit management take at Michigan State University within the

Department of Resource Development, College of Agriculture and

Natural Resources?

1) Study Design

The first step in the research methodology was a review of the literature. Langton
(1982) advocated a long list of skills that NRB nonprofit leaders need, but did not address
how they should go about acquiring them. Data from Snow (1992) outlined strategies
that NRB nonprofit leaders use to run their organizations, but did not directly address the
skills needed to employ them. From a NRB coursework standpoint, no information was
found as to what classes would be most useful in teaching these skills.

There was ample literature on the creation of “generic” nonprofit management
programs, however. Relevant information on the characteristics of the NRB nonprofit
sector in Michigan was also found. Taken together, these findings were used in guiding
the design of this research.

Mirabella and Wish (1999), Tschirhart (1998), and Hall (1994) saw a strong need
for the content of these programs to be driven by the requisite skills and knowledge bases
of the nonprofit organizations themselves. O’Neill and Young (1988: 18) stated that

...the characteristics of nonprofit organizations [in this case, NRB nonprofits] and

the characteristics of nonprofit organization management must be the dominant
force shaping any curriculum to meet the needs of these managers.

41

As such, the curricular content of nonprofit programs can not be determined based solely
upon internal University interests. Mary Hall (1994) addressed this issue by creating a
nonprofit-driven curriculum at Seattle University. In it she used focus groups with
nonprofit managers to identify the “core skill competency areas” of these leaders.
Mirabella and Wish (1999), O’Neill and Young (1988), and Levy (1988) also presented
compelling reasoning that the input of nonprofits into these programs should be from the
local level.
Original research is therefore needed to generate data on which to base the design

of a NRB nonprofit management program at Michigan State. Mirabella and Wish (1999)
and Mary Hall (1994) found the methodology of focus groups useful in the acquisition of
data on requisite skills. Beckwith (2001) also employed such a methodology in similar
work exploring the creation of a natural resource executive academy at Michigan State
University. The use of focus groups in qualitative research has been a commonly
employed method for gathering normative data in the academic setting (Morgan, 1988),
and has several investigative strengths:
0 It can produce a rich body of data expressed in the respondent’s own words and

context, and offers opportunities for the employment of a constructivist technique that

ensures two-way learning.

° There is a minimum of artificially of response (a weakness of many survey
questionnaires) and respondents can qualify their answers.

0 Data can be collected more quickly and cost effectively than through individual in-
depth interviews. Participants can also react to the views of others in real time (as
opposed to the Delphi technique).

Taken as a whole, a strong case can thus be made for the employment of a focus

group methodology in researching the core skill competencies of local NRB nonprofits,

their managers, and employees. Such an approach addresses the lack of local nonprofit

42

input as identified in the Kellogg Foundation’s Building Bridges Initiative, and fits nicely
with the strong scholar-practitioner philosophy within the Department of Resource

Development.

2) Methodology and Execution

Requisite university approval for the use of human subjects in research was
obtained through UCRIHS. The National Wildlife Federation’s “2001 Conservation
Directory” and the “People of Color Environmental Groups 2000 Directory” were then
used to identify potential mid-Michigan based NRB nonprofits, staffs, and contact
information. The membership rosters of such environmental umbrella organizations as
the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, the Michigan Environmental Council, and
Earth Share of Michigan were also used. Letters were then generated to seek the study
participation of these organizations’ executive leaders or employees. A snowball
technique was also used to expand the pool of potential participants. Over 40 people
were directly contacted for inclusion in the study, of which 18 agreed to participate.
Copies of both the recruitment letter and consent form are available in the appendix.

Three goals were chosen in the picking of these NRB organization participants.
One was to obtain a broad and diverse set of groups (within this study’s definition of a
NRB nonprofit; see the preface for details), attempting to obtain a mix based on
variations in mission, size, ideologies, and use of volunteers. The second goal was to
choose local organizations that represented only the Michigan chapters of national
organizations or organizations unique to Michigan. The third goal was to seek two
specific types of candidates: either past or present NRB nonprofit executives or the

employees of such organizations that had been recent graduates of Michigan State

43

University from the Department of Resource Development. This was done to ensure a
balance between extensive nonprofit experience and the insights of recent students who
also had knowledge of the current programs and coursework offerings within Michigan
State and the department.

Thus identified, two focus groups concerning issues relevant to NRB nonprofit
education were held in February and March of 2002 in Laingsburg, Michigan. A focus
group guide was developed for this exercise which looked to explore:

1) What knowledge and skills are necessary for the success of NRB nonprofit
employees and their leaders?

2) What courses or other teaching methods could the university offer to assist
NRB nonprofits in honing these skills?

3) Are the critical skills needed by NRB nonprofits different than those needed by
for-profit, public, or other nonprofit organizations?

4) Is the university a good way for NRB nonprofits to acquire these skills?

5) What degree structure should a NRB nonprofit program have? Should it be a

professional degree similar in form to a MBA or MPA? Or should it be a more

traditional program that includes academic research and the writing of a thesis?
Both groups were facilitated by the researcher and took place at a local restaurant in a
private meeting room. Registration began at 6:30pm with dinner beginning at 7:00pm. A
camcorder, a tape recorder, and field notes were employed as recording methods.

Looking at the two groups as a whole, the sixteen final participants included eight
males and eight females that were working for, or had worked for, a total of 13 different
NRB organizations in operation today. In one case a participant had served on the board
of an additional such organization, bringing the total number up to 14. In some cases

participants had worked for several groups, and many had additional experience with

defunct NRB organizations, non-NRB nonprofits, or community foundations.

Larger organizations represented included the Michigan United Conservation
Clubs, the Michigan Environmental Council, the Sierra Club, and the Nature
Conservancy. The other organizations included groups that were considered too small at
the local level to ensure participant confidentiality by listing them here. These included
three hunting based conservation organizations (similar to the National United Turkey
Federation, etc.), three environmental advocacy organizations (similar to the West
Michigan Environmental Action Council, etc.), and four other organizations that were
primarily involved in education, land preservation, or environmental fundraising (similar
to the Michigan Recycling Coalition, Little Traverse Conservancy, etc.). This
represented a good cross section of NRB nonprofits in some ways, both in terms of the
size and missions of the local conservation and environmental communities. Race and
age were not part of pretrial screening criteria. Ages varied substantially but participants
were overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, Caucasian.

Seven participants took part in the first session, not including one no show. Five
participants had already graduated from Michigan State University, three with bachelors
degrees and two with masters degrees. Two others were still finishing their masters
research but were largely done with coursework. Five of the seven were from the
Department of Resource Development, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
while two others were from another department within the College or had graduated with
a degree in public administration. Except for one alumni from the mid 19905, all other
graduates had received their degrees from no earlier than 1999. The majority of
participants had three years or less of experience in NRB nonprofits, although two

individuals had worked for longer periods that brought the group average up to six.

45

Nine participants took part in the second session, not including one no show.
Seven of the nine were either past or current executive directors in NRB nonprofit
organizations and had an average of twenty years of nonprofit work experience. Degrees
represented included two Ph.D.s, three MS/MAs, one MBA, and one JD. Two other
participants had completed some masters work.

Both of the formal videotaped portions of the sessions lasted over an hour and a
half. Initial impressions were noted and written down at the conclusion of the sessions
and added to the “in progress” field notes that had been taken. Videotapes were reviewed
in their entirety the following morning, and more detailed notes were produced to
compare with the field notes and to identify relevant themes and salient quotations. The
content analysis required that the videos be reviewed several times. Once they were
analyzed, the videotapes were used again to obtain verbatim transcripts of selected
quotes. A preliminary findings document was generated and emailed to the participants
for their thoughts and comments. No participants replied back with rnischaracterizations.

Findings are considered highly suggestive but not generizable for several reasons.
One is that only two focus groups were employed, capturing a significant amount of mid-
Michigan based NRB nonprofit organizations but not enough to adequately represent
them in their totality. In many cases, there was also only one participant representative of
an organization, perhaps qualifying feedback as being more indicative of the individual’s
views than the nonprofits as a whole. Despite significant diversity of the participants in
some categories, agricultural, minority, faith-based, and smaller community NRB

nonprofit participation was lacking.

46

CHAPTER FOUR

STUDY FINDINGS

The first theme raised by the researcher at each focus group was the skills or
knowledge necessary for success in the NRB nonprofit sector. The participants were also
encouraged to reflect on whether or not these skills differed from those of other sectors, if
college was an appropriate setting to gain these skills, and what courses at the college
level might address these needs. Each focus group wound down with an attempt to
identify which of the potential courses were most important, and concluded with a
discussion on the format such a program might take.

A large amount of data was generated by both groups. In general, the first group
brought up more skills and ideas for courses, while the second group brought up fewer
ideas but tended to discuss them more in depth. There was very little open disagreement
in either of the groups. The participant’s body language suggested to the researcher that

there was very little hidden disagreement as well.

1) Skills and Knowledge Questioning Results

While there was general consensus on the required skill sets, some skills were seen as
more important than others. This was reflected in the fact that the groups spent more
time discussing some skills in-depth as opposed to other skills that garnered less
attention. While all of the skills described can be viewed as important to the participants,
they can be categorized into three sets based on the degree of discussion they generated
in the focus groups. The following classification serves as a basis for relative

importance but can not be viewed as a definitive guide:

47

Skill sets 1 represents areas where the majority of discussion occurred:
Communication skills, broadly defined

Business skills, broadly defined

Fundraising skills, broadly defined

Coping skills, broadly defined

Real life experiences

Board recruitment and relationships

Skill sets 2 represents areas where a substantial amount of discussion occurred:
0 Membership/volunteer management

0 Political and policy skills

Skill sets 3 represents areas where the least amount of discussion occurred:

° Computer skills

0 Special event planning skills
° Legal skills

Skill set 1 synopsis

It is interesting to note that in both sessions communication skills were brought up
first, followed roughly by business skills, fundraising skills, and board relations. In most
cases these categories came to be defined very broadly and encompassed a wide variety
of related skills and knowledge sets.

Communication skills included those that were both verbal and written, and
applied to a wide variety of audiences. The frequency with which communication skills
were used in the sector was highlighted by a participant:

Especially if you are working in the nonprofit sector, because your are always

communicating either with the public, or your membership, or donors, or funders,

or legislators. And how you communicate that message, and how that

communication effects the person you’re communicating with, is very important.
Audience characterization was seen as a very important skill, as was being able to then
adapt one’s communication style based on the contextual situation:

[Audience] diversity, and communication methodology, would be the emphasis. I

had an experience working with a high level administrator, and I had to have a
different framework. . .I had to understand his perspective. There was a whole

48

different set of communication skills than if I was dealing with donors, if I was
dealing with the media.

Communication was considered two-way in that it also focused on the need for better
listening skills, analysis of what was being said, and understanding differing perspectives.
This was also seen in the recognition that trust played an important role in the
communication process, and that openness to the viewpoints of others was important for
successful collaborations and outcomes when multiple stakeholders were involved.

Listening skills, I don’t think we get enough training in that. There are complex

issues that we have to potentially grasp sometimes. How do we hear the multi-

dimensionality of an issue quickly and efficiently in a way that makes sense so
that we can operate effectively? It relates to collaboration, relates to media
relations, it relates to voicing your message as well. . .how do employees work
together as a team. . .not just between nonprofits, but between government,
business, education.
It was also mentioned that learning from one another was important in the creation of
“learning organizations” that adapt and change to dynamic environments. This allowed
for the creation of networking opportunities outside of the organization with a wide
variety of stakeholders (e. g., other nonprofits, government, etc.).

Some saw communications as similar to public relations. Most felt that media
relations, including how one talks to the media, were an important and potentially distinct
subset of communications. A strong need was identified to be able to write or talk in
concise, focused messages in these and other situations. Public speaking and presentation
skills were also seen as important, in both small and large groups. There was also

agreement that the writing skills of new applicants were getting worse based on the

quality of resumes and cover letters they were receiving.

49

Business skills were another crowded category. The most popular label for this
category was “nonprofit management”, as many felt it imbued all of the desired skills and
a prerequisite systemic/holistic approach:

[I’d choose] nonprofit management, broadly stated - that being the board
development, the finance and budget issues, and that sort of thing. And one of the
things I have seen consistently over the twenty-five years or so I have been
involved in this is that people do not know how to run an organization or

projects. . .in the broadest sense they are not trained to be institutional leaders.
They simply don’t know how to plan, to budget, they don’t know the personnel
issues, they don’t know how to deal with the issues that may blow up in their face,
that could put their institution in jeopardy, be it financial or legal jeopardy. That
would be in my estimation, far and away, the most important thing that a
nonprofit program could develop. . .each of these things that we’ve talked about is
a part.

Similar thoughts were mentioned in the other group as well:
I think that we’re completely lacking business skills. I mean a business plan,
having a strategic plan, not just doing what is good for the environment, but being
fiscally responsible in the manner that you do that.
There was broad agreement that many leaders in the movement were wildlife biologists
who had little or no business training:
So many of us, right here at this table, three or four of us came out of the wildlife
profession, and got our education in wildlife, and were very poorly suited to take
on a role, particularly a leadership role, CEO of an organization, with no
management skills, no business background, no communication skills with the
media.
Being able to develop strategic plans and to follow mission statements was seen as
important. An analysis of how and why decisions were being made by the nonprofit
community was sorely needed, and an ability to put mission over “grant chasing” was

seen as critical as well. A desire to understand how nonprofit organizations “work in

general” was cited as needed.

50

Many felt very strongly that the leadership and the “human side” of business also
had to be included, and that human resource skills were needed to create motivated
individuals and effective teams. Leadership that created self-sufficient employees and
project managers was important as well. Employees needed to be able to handle a project
from beginning to end despite the many skills they would need to employ. How to run a
meeting and protect employees’ time was also seen as important.

Fundraising skills. The ability of a NRB nonprofit to get funds was deemed as
critical. Two participants viewed this as perhaps the most important skill. There was
agreement that in the past this had centered too much on grantwriting, which was still
seen as important but not sufficient in and of itself. How to run capital campaigns, create
cause-related marketing contracts, build a dues paying membership, and familiarity with
planned giving options were all seen as required. Development officers needed to be
knowledgeable in a variety of fundraising techniques and aggressive in their execution.

Fundraising in the nonprofit world is absolutely integral to anything else that
[we’ve] talked about. In these days and times, probably one of the top three.

It was also important that all employees (and board members) know how to spot a giving
opportunity and approach others for donations. It could not be the sole responsibility of
just a given few in the organization.

Board skills focused on the recruitment of “good” board members and the need
for clear communication between the board and the organization’s staff. This was seen
as a frequent area of friction for many of the participants. There was also agreement that
board members needed to be active, especially in the fundraising arena:

Learning how to solicit, you don’t just want a board member that has a name, you

want a board member that is active, you want a board member that knows what
fundraising means, and. . . [has skills like those of] a lawyer and an accountant.

51

What came to be deemed as “board management” entailed how executives helped to
define the roles of the board (and themselves), so that misunderstandings were minimized
and accountability could be enforced. Employees wanted to know where they stood.
There was a need to better understand governance within the organization and how
decisions were made.

Coping skills best define an eclectic but highly interrelated area that deals with
burnout and stress. For many this meant better time management, prioritization skills,
multiple task management, and crisis management. For others this meant looking to find
balance in life with work and personal obligations. This seemed particularly important
for three members of the study. Many felt that future nonprofit employees needed to
understand the realities of working in the sector in advance:

You need to kind of acquaint people who are thinking maybe of making careers in

nonprofits as to the cycles of mental, spiritual boom and bust. . .if you expect it’s

going to be just fighting for good and right everyday, and you’re going to be
turned on, and its just going to be fabulous because you are a righteous warrior,
you’re going to have a big disappointment.
Minimizing frustration over roles and other ambiguities within the organization was seen
as important as well, especially when it was necessary for people to “wear many hats” in
smaller nonprofits. Being able to be a “quick study” was important, as was a need for
responding to unanticipated crises. Beyond a focus on the executives there was a need
for addressing staff burnout as well.

Real world knowledge. The idea that real world experience was critical to the
success of employees in nonprofits was pervasive in both sessions.

Real life experience. . .by offering real life opportunities, plugged into a real

nonprofit organization while you’re going to school, gives you the chance to see
the multidimensionality of life in the real world.

52

This category encompassed internships, student consulting, employer interviews, and an
emphasis on the ability to work in the real world. Internships were seen as an important
way to gain such experience, and in the first group 4 of the 7 participants received their
jobs as a direct result of internships:
I think internships are just so extremely valuable, and to have as much out of class
time as in class time. I’m sure there are a lot of special nonprofit organizations
that would love to have internships, but obviously well screened, so that they’re
not just stamping and mailing, but they’re actually able to go to board meetings

and see interactions. That is really important, so that they’re really out there in
the real world.

Skill set 2 synopsis

Membership/volunteer skills were discussed primarily in the first group, in a
variety of contexts. The first dealt with how to persuade members to join an
organization, a skill that was deemed as more unique to nonprofits than other sectors. It
was seen as largely different than customer satisfaction and was not based on a formal
product model. It was felt that there was a need for a strong ability to build relationships
with members, who are more intertwined with the organization and do not just “buy a
product and then go away” as they might in the for-profit world. An organization could
literally “kill” itself if it failed to adequately recruit and maintain members.

Members could also become volunteers for an organization, and this required
another skill set that drew heavily from human resource management. They needed to be
treated differently than regular employees:

[We] learn how to do [volunteer management] on the fly. . .volunteers are

motivated much differently than paid staff, I mean, you can’t rely on them to
show up for one thing, they’re really under no obligation.

53

Political and policy skills were brought up in the first session and centered on
advocacy and lobbying. These skills needed to go beyond just how the political process
was supposed to work, but needed to cover the intricacies of how such decisions were
actually made in the real world. It was mentioned that this might not be applicable to all
NRB nonprofit organizations.

Public policy was an offshoot of this area: what it is, how it is made, and how it is
put into practice. There was a need for balance between knowing some policy issues in
great depth and having a broad understanding of general issues. There was also a sense
that some people were grounded too much or too little in environmental issues versus
scientific conservation management, when in reality they are mutually dependent. Skills
were needed to understand both since neither existed in a vacuum:

The College of Agriculture and Natural Resources does something that is very

bizarre. Resource Development is very environmentally focused [on land, air,

and water]. . .while the others [are more focused on fisheries and wildlife]. . .The
schools of thought are not together.
Skill set 3 synopsis

Computer skills were brought up in the first session, under the context of
membership databases. Computer programs were also mentioned that could manage
donor data as well. Programs like Microsoft Excel had to be used since most customized
nonprofit software was very expensive. For those not proficient in computer use, they
had to rely heavily on the organization’s “computer people”, resulting in wasted time.

Event skills were brought up in the first session related to volunteer management.
One person cited too many instances where they thought they could put together a

successful meeting and then had problems with volunteers and audience members

54

showing up. This could be for a rally or demonstration. It was felt that you had to know
what was realistic and in what time frame things could be accomplished.

Legal skills were touched on briefly in the first group in regards to the legal
constraints that nonprofits operate under such as knowing how much one can lobby. It
was also brought up very briefly in regards to organizational and crisis management in

the second session.

2) Course Questioning Results

While questions regarding skills and classes were asked separately, in many cases
these areas of discussion bled into each other during the course of the sessions. People
jumped ahead to needed courses while discussing skills, and coursework was justified by
referring back to requisite skill sets. In some instances, linking skills to courses was done
in a basic fashion where everyone agreed that course “XYZ” was needed to teach skill
“XYZ”. In other areas more detailed discussion occurred over how those courses should
be held, how many courses should be held, who should teach them, etc.

After participants were finished generating potential courses they were then asked
to name “their top two or three”. Participants could choose classes that they actually had
taken, hypothetical classes, or classes the group had not previously discussed. Attempts
were then made to keep a running tally of which were viewed as most important,
although this process met with several problems. Participants expressed difficulty in
choosing, wanted to change their minds, or wanted to pick more than was allowed. There
was general dissatisfaction with the process, and many indicated that most of the classes

were equally vital to the success of NRB nonprofit organizations. Some felt that some

55

courses were so interrelated that you could not have one without the other if one wanted
to understand the entire picture.

Communications courses. The needed communications skills were quite diverse
and it was agreed that they could not be addressed in just one class. Suggestions were
made for media relations, public relations, and audience characterization as being discreet
courses. Speech writing/ giving was seen as something that needed to be covered in a
course, as was the ability to write concise reports and memos. How to deal with multiple
stakeholders needed to be addressed as well, and the discussion surrounding it brought up
the need for a negotiation or conflict management class. When participants were asked to
give their wish list for the two or three most important courses, one gave public speaking
and another gave a general communications course that included media relations.

Business courses. Many business related areas were given as suggestions for
courses. The vast majority of these included general nonprofit management. This was
due in large part to one session where it became very difficult to separate strategic
planning, mission development, and project management from each other. One person in
particular was very adamant that it was not difficult to choose between the various
business skills, but that in nonprofit management a holistic and all encompassing
approach was necessary to create leaders that could do more than operationally manage.
General nonprofit management, thus broadly stated and synthesized, came out as the
clear favorite overall in the business related skills. Project management and strategic
planning still came in with several individual votes as the most important classes, as did
an accounting and economics course that blended both classical and natural resource

economics. This reflected a desire to understand economics under a natural resources

56

umbrella while understanding the classical economics that drive other stakeholder
decisions.

There was general agreement that nonprofits had not focused on these business
skills in the past. Much of this had to do with the challenge of melding the passions of
nonprofits with the more steely business practices of typical capitalistic corporations. It
was also seen as a reason why business courses taught in a nonprofit program might have
to be different:

We’re in this [nonprofit] world because we believe in what we do. Many people

in the environmental world are very connected to what we do, and many people in

the business world are not...In the economics class I have taken, their bottom line
or how they get their numbers is a lot different than if you were to take a natural
resources economics class. So I think that it is important to realize that maybe
there are some things that you couldn’t get, or that you would want an alternate
perspective from, then if you took just a straight business class.

Fundraising courses. Two people held general fundraising as one of their top
potential courses. “[I’d pick] fundraising, fundraising, fundraising, until you told me I
had to stop.” Determining how many different courses this should entail was difficult, as
conceivably an entire course could be spent on just grantwriting alone, which all agreed
that by itself was not sufficient.

Board courses. Few specifics were given on a course for this skill other than that
one was needed to cover both the recruitment and retention of good board members.

How to define the roles of board members and how to communicate with boards was also
important. Role-playing was seen as a potential teaching method:

I think it would be very helpful to have an introductory course into just the

dynamics of an organization, dynamics of a board/ governance organization, from

the nonprofit sector, and being able to do role playing, and role establishment, so
the person going into that knows what managerial skills are going to be required

of them, and also what fundraising skills are going to be required of them.
Everybody knows what their role is going in.

57

Coping courses. As mentioned, much of the discussion revolving around a
course to provide students with coping skills had to do with letting students know what it
was “they would be getting themselves into” in the NRB nonprofit world. Many felt that
their introduction to nonprofit employment had been a trial by fire, and they wanted
students to find out if nonprofit work was right for them before they got a job. There was
some talk of an initial broad “survey” class that would expose new students to the myriad
of hats that they would have to wear at the beginning of the program, giving them a
chance to change their mind.

Other ways that coping could be addressed was through the offering of a
comprehensive nonprofit program that students could take at a university, such as the one
under consideration at Michigan State University. Burnout was often cited as a result of
frustration over being unprepared, and many felt that with the proper education this could
be minimized. Others saw courses being offered on time management, prioritization, and
multiple task management to help set goals and reduce ambiguity.

Finding balance in one’s life was also seen as important, as was stress reduction.
One person used the acronym SCOPE to describe a course on teaching a “system
creating organizational and personal effectiveness”:

Stress, the number one killer in our country. . .somewhere in that curriculum, a
class needs to be given as to how people keep the balance, how people actually
become effective. . .how a person keeps their job, how they stay alive, how they
make the organization vibrant, thriving, and successful. . .it’s a tweaking of time
management, it’s events management [but also something more].

Coursework that might address this included self-directed (class directed) learning,

similar to some Bailey’s Scholar programs offered at Michigan State. This would help in

58

self-realization and personal effectiveness, as well as increasing comfort with ambiguity
and differing personal values.

Real life experience. Internships rivaled business skills as the most popular
teaching option for prospective nonprofit employees. Many of the recent students in the
first group thought that they should be mandatory, although they also wanted to make
sure that they would be doing more than making coffee. This reflected a genuine interest
to not just work and network within the nonprofit but to truly learn from it. Some
suggested spending an entire semester working twenty hours or forty hours a week in lieu
of formal classes. Some were not sure if this was overkill, and one person in particular
felt that they could not personally afford to do any internships if they were not paid.
There was a desire to work for both small and large nonprofits, and even some for-profit
organizations, to see how they varied. In addition to internships, other real life
experiences included in—depth interviews of staff and the keeping of a “learning journal”
in lieu of formal academic research. These papers could be kept on file for others in the
program to read and to help them in choosing where to do an internship. Learning from
real issues or developments in the local area was preferable to cases and made up
scenarios. There was also a desire among recent students to have some courses taught by
adjunct faculty who had worked in the real nonprofit world, and not by professors who
were only willing to teach theory.

This was also mentioned by the second group, who expressed an interest in
teaching at such a program themselves, and who mentioned that “internships go both
ways”. There was also broad agreement that they wanted to hire people with internship

experience. Some problems needed to be resolved, however. Experience with bachelors

59

students had been poor as some lacked the maturity and skills to be assets to the
organization (the experiences with masters students were more favorable). The ability to
pay for an intern was also nonexistent at most nonprofits, regardless of size. If the
students needed to be paid, they needed to somehow be subsidized so the nonprofits
could compete with the paid for-profit internships. They also wanted to immerse students
and make sure they did not do just clerical work. However, there was a problem when
good students left, as it was akin to losing an employee. They needed to know that there
would be continuity from semester to semester, but even then there was a significant
learning curve getting the new student up to speed. Some of this could be alleviated with
loose contracts and memorandums of understanding between the university and the
nonprofit.
We get dependent upon internships. . .the intern leaves, and who picks up the
pieces? That type of a scenario is very real, and I think what any organization has
to do is to go into an internship program with a long range vision and a workable
memorandum of understanding with the nonprofit organization and the agency or
university. . .not a three semester deal and they’re out - I mean it would be almost
continuous, and there would be a joint responsibility of fundraising to help
maintain the salary issue. In other words, their development people over there
would also be committed to trying to jointly raise funds to fund that position.
Political courses. One person voted for a public policy course as one of their top
choices, although specifics were not given other than that it should be broad. There was
also a desire for advocacy classes, taught by actual politicians or lobbyists:
I graduated with a really good background in how government worked - like
textbook how government worked. . .there is no class out there that trains you in
how politics really works. . .you need to understand how polls work, what they

means, how to utilize them, what to do with the results, how to create a
groundswell for an issue, how to pick your issue.

60

Ethics and values courses. Although this area had not been brought up during
the time spent on necessary skills, it was mentioned as a hypothetical class during
coursework feedback. It could deal with how to interact with unscrupulous people, and
how to ensure that ethics were practiced in the face of pressure for worthwhile
organizations to succeed. Examples included whether or not to report declining
membership numbers when applying for grants and if organization should exaggerate
claims when working with the media. One method of creating awareness on this issue
was to have students take mock ethical surveys, where they were placed in difficult
situations and asked to think through their decisions. One person voted for this as one of
their top considerations.

Other courses and considerations. Other skills that were raised but generated
little discussion in regards to specific coursework, included membership management,
volunteer management, computer skills, events planning, and legal issues. In some cases
it was simply mentioned that such a course was need to address a certain skill, but no one
voted for any courses related to these areas as one of their top picks. When this was
mentioned at the end of the rankings to see if they were unimportant or if they had just
been overlooked, all participants agreed that they were still vital skills to the success of
NRB nonprofits. One person said that volunteer and membership management would
definitely be one of their top choices, but that they had just forgotten about them with so
many to choose from. In fact, they suggested that volunteer management should be one
if not several courses. One person selected environmental education as a top pick, but no

specifics were given and it failed to generate additional discussion.

61

One skill that the researcher expected to be raised in the focus groups was
marketing. It was not mentioned, however, as a discreet skill or discreet course in either
group. When this was pointed out in the first session they all agreed that it was an
important skill and that it was highly related to member recruitment, public relations, etc.
Even when the second group was baited and told that marketing had been highly rated in
the first group, they still did not feel it that it had intentionally been overlooked. They
instead felt that it was already represented as a thread that ran through fundraising,
strategic planning, and many of the other courses. What relevance this has as to the
importance of marketing as a discreet skill or course is unclear. It is possible that this is
good news, in that nonprofit organizations no longer see marketing as a necessary evil
that is to be kept distant from their organization. Regardless, it is interesting that it was

not used as a discreet category.

3) Additional Questioning Results

Sector Specificity. The results from both focus groups indicated that participants
felt strongly that nonprofits faced challenges different from those of the for-profit and
public sectors. Where they existed, most felt that areas of similarity occurred more
frequently with governmental jobs than with private industry. Some saw many NRB
nonprofit leaders as having come from the public sector, but still supported the need for a
specific nonprofit program at the university level.

It’s got to be designed around the nonprofit organization. It’s business

management for nonprofit organizations, that covers everything we’ve talked

about, from communications, finance, budgets, volunteers, fundraising. . .it has to
be keyed to the nonprofit world.

62

Membership management was one important area where the sectors were seen to
significantly differ. There was a sense that environmental nonprofits were more in a
partnership with their members than were customers or the public at large in other
sectors. These members therefore placed more demands on the nonprofits, demands that
the nonprofits had difficulty responding to because of monetary and political constraints.
This was seen as an important area of concern in light of the financial importance of the
members and their actions as volunteers.

Board relations were thought to be different for nonprofits as well. The
organizations’ grass roots bases meant that their volunteer boards were more “hands on”
and domineering than CEO driven for-profit companies. At the same time, these
grassroots board members were often lacking in the type of professional skills possessed
by corporate board members. Trying to bring them up to speed and modifying board
structures once they were in place was extremely difficult.

Many of the NRB nonprofit participants felt that their small size required them to
“wear more hats” than someone in the corporate world or a governmental agency. This
went beyond just multiple duties within an area, but meant having to be able to do almost
everything in the organization. Much of this had to do with the extremely small budgets
for staff these groups had, where differences in fundraising were critical to how many
employees could be hired. The role of passion and values was seen as a related
differentiation as well.

[MBA Programs] aren’t geared for a nonprofit. I mean, we don’t have very many

staff, you’ve got to run everything by yourself. First off, you come into the

environmental group with a passion for what it is you are doing, and now you

have to. . .be the public relations person, the manager, communicator with the
board. You’ve got to wear all those hats at the same time.

63

Another participant agreed in part:

And it’s not really size dependent, either. If you come from [a large

organization], you’re not going to see your CEO touch a box or unload a

truck. . .the head of our board [came from a large corporation]. He’s trying to run

our company just like he ran his financial services. He’s finding out that he’s

hitting a loggerhead because the people he’s got to talk to - when you talk to a

rancher [for example]. . .He has the passion, but he approaches it business like,

and that is not working at times with some of the other people because they are
dealing strictly from their heart. So, a really strict business education is great, and
it will help, but I don’t think it serves you all the time. I think there needs to be
that specialization, where you incorporate, you integrate that heart, and that
feeling, and the understanding of what makes nonprofits work, while still

understanding how to make a business work. Because if you forget you are a

business, no matter how big your heart is, you are going belly up.

Discussions were held in both groups as to how much they wanted to mirror the
business world. Some felt that they were not running their organizations in a fiscally
responsible manner. This was seen as unsustainable and detrimental to the cause in the
long run. At the same time, others wanted to make sure that programmatic missions
stayed the main focus of the organization. Sometimes risks needed to be taken for the
cause that might not be taken in the corporate setting where dollars were the main
measuring stick. Some felt that taking business courses similar to what an MBA student
might take would be fine, but for others there needed to be a blending of the two sides to
ensure that the passion employees brought to work was not extinguished by business
practices. One person wanted to be exposed to best practices so that they could choose
what they wanted to learn from the business world and discard the rest. Daily operations,
human resources, and how to manage people were seen as examples where there was
more of a potential for overlap. Even here, however, it was pointed out that nonprofit

employees were underpaid and overworked compared to their for—profit counterparts.

Money was not available to just give them raises, so other, more creative ways were

needed to reward them and keeping them motivated. This could include flextime, more
autonomy, the lack of a time card (being treated like a professional/adult), and greater
vacation days.

It was mentioned that even where universities taught courses that nonprofit
students could benefit from, many of them would not know what those skills were at the
time, or they might not be aware that those courses were offered because they were
hidden in other programs. There were no nonprofit templates for them to follow. Even if
there was, they might also have enrollment problems (i.e., courses only open to MBA
students). Having tracks created that helped them in choosing which classes to explore
was important, as was interdepartmental cooperation that would allow nonprofit students
to access them.

University appropriateness. Whether or not the university was an appropriate
place for nonprofit employees to acquire needed skills was discussed. There was general
agreement that it was, although it did not preclude the use of other opportunities (e.g.,
conferences, internal initiatives, etc.). Typical comments included:

I think you’re right on with this. There are a lot of universities looking at these

nonprofit programs because the predictions are that in twenty years one out of six

Americans will be working for a nonprofit, so they are all seeing an opportunity

there. . .I think you have to teach [management skills], and I’ll tell you, ifI was

ever in the position of starting a new organization and hiring the first staff person,

I would definitely not want a wildlife biologist, or some such natural resources

professional, or a forester. No, I would want somebody who has some skills in

management. . .managing projects. . .fiscal responsibility. . .human resource skills.

We can’t teach the passion, and those are the people we want to attract. But then

once we get them they don’t have skills. The schools can teach them, but it has to

be nonprofit oriented.

I know there is some really good training out there, but we’re not doing it early

enough. . .and the movement could really be enhanced by having this happen at
the collegiate level.

65

There are certain things that you’re not just going to learn until you are on the job,
but you can be taught a whole host of a lot more things while you are still in
school.
Some people were unsure of how some skills could be taught in the university setting,
such as coping skills and stress management. How to meld the “head and heart” of
business and passion was also seen as a potential challenge. But in both cases there was
general agreement that these were needed courses:

One of the things I want somebody to teach me is how do I deal with my job and

all of the other things that are going on in my life, and how do I make them mesh

without one thing totally affecting the other. . .honestly, it would not be a bad
thing to talk about to people who are thinking about coming into this field.

There was also agreement that most environmental nonprofits did not have the
budget to send their people to get additional training once they were on the job. This fell
on the employees’ shoulders for the most part, and the more skills a student could get
before going into the nonprofit sector the better.

Some environmental nonprofits have been creating free “leadership institutes” of
their own, such as one created by the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund.
These are usually a few days to a week in length, and are created expressly for training
selected members of other environmental organizations. While extremely beneficial,
participants felt that they simply could not teach all that was needed in such short
timeframes. They also required extensive travel and entire days off of work. They did
serve in making employees realize just how much more they needed to know.

In general, there was high interest in the possibility of Michigan State creating

such a program in both sessions. When the session ended for the second group, many

stayed to ask “what would be happening next with the development of the program” and

66

to express an interest in internships and adjunct teaching. No one in either group voiced
any negative comments about the creation of such a formal program at the university
level. Participants who had been relatively quiet were probed to see if their silence
indicated a lack of interest. This was not the case, but more a matter of “Everything just
is hitting home, real hard.”

Degrees offered. Whether or not such a program, offered at the masters level,
should be a traditional academic degree (requiring a plan A thesis/plan B paper) or a
professional degree similar to a “nonprofit MBA or MPA” was also discussed. The
overwhelming response from both groups was that a professional degree should be
offered along with the other options, and that the professional degree was preferred.

I have done both, and maybe it’s just me, but I didn’t like research. . .this to me

sounds more like a plan B program or a terminal program. A person, if they’re

going into research - they might go on to get a Ph.D. or something - I don’t think
would be the kind of person who would be in this program.

Participants in the second group, who were more in a position to do hiring, felt
that they would rather have employees who had taken more coursework and spent more
time doing internships than those who had spent time doing academic research. All other
things being equal, they also did not want an employee who might be distracted by going
on to pursue a Ph.D. Real world experience was so important to one participant that even
bachelors students who had done internships were preferred over those that had
additional schooling:

Nonprofits are much more likely to take somebody who they know has some

skills with a nonprofit. . .if I had a bachelors student with two years of interning

experience during their undergrad, and a masters, and no real word experience,

I’m taking the BS. . .pretty much everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

Another said:

67

It’s just not very practical often times, in order to get your research done, and get

it done in a timely fashion, especially for people that are already working in a

professional field. Then you have to piggy back on some professor’s work nine

times out of ten. . . you just do it and you’re not really invested in it. And you
already know how to do research [from other classes]...l’d get so much more out
of getting an advanced degree if I didn’t have to worry about if all of my classes

were supporting my thesis. . .I already know [the subject area of these classes I’m

forced to take].

This translated into a strong preference towards practical projects over academic
research, especially when some drew strong distinctions between practical research
(needed for everyday purposes) and the type of academic research that was needed for
Plan A or Plan B papers. This disdain was mentioned as a reason for the large amount of
“all [coursework] but [no] dissertation” students who had left academia. One person
considered switching majors to a public policy program that did not require a thesis
because they viewed published research as irrelevant and a waste of time.

One person thought that there needed to be a change in what constituted academic
research, and wanted to know why simply reflecting on what one had learned could not
be considered adequate research for an academic thesis. Another agreed that it should be
an option, but that a regular thesis could still be “OK” if it was on an applied subject and
not too theoretical. The same person later stated that “the MBA model is a good one”,
and it appeared that flexibility was their chief concern.

Participants who had only pursued bachelors degrees indicated that they would

have also wanted access to these classes as an undergraduate, raising the point that such a

program might be offered at a variety of levels.

68

4) Study Analysis and Summary

Analysis of the data thus revealed a large amount of information on the skillsets,
coursework, and experiential learning opportunities that members of the NRB nonprofit
organizations perceived to be of high importance for the success of their sector.
Communications skills, business skills, fundraising skills, coping skills, and board related
skills received the most discussion, although volunteer management skills and
political/policy skills received considerable attention. The need for practical, real world
experience received through internship opportunities was also stressed.

Taken together, this represented a strong focus on both the internal management
of NRB nonprofits (e. g., business skills, board relations, and volunteer management) and
the external management of their environment (e. g., communication skills, fundraising
skills, political skills). There was also an emphasis on developing the individual as an
effective organizational manager through leadership skills, coping skills, and experiential
learning.

The differences of the NRB nonprofit sector, particularly compared to
government and business, was emphasized not just through the technical differences in
terms of a legal framework but also through the importance of values, passions, and
ethics. It was perceived that just employing general business courses would not be
enough to meet the unique needs of the sector. The small size of the local NRB
nonprofits was also frequently mentioned as a reason for effective NRB nonprofit leaders
to possess a broad set of skills and knowledge. In many cases these managers were

forced to be a jack of all trades, as were many of their employees.

69

Very little attention was given to skills that had to do with the programmatic
missions of NRB nonprofit organizations. In fact, skills in NRB science were seen as
almost inconsequential. This could be due to a variety of reasons, most notably that the
individuals were focusing on areas that they saw sector deficiencies in and not in areas
where they felt the NRB nonprofit organizations were strongly prepared (e.g., ecology,
biology, etc.). This could be due to sufficient baccalaureate education or extensive NRB
nonprofit experience.

It could also be that recruitment letters were overly specific in giving direction to
the conversations. That is, that the “purpose of the focus groups were to explore issues
relating to NRB nonprofit programs” as opposed to just exploring requisite NRB
skillsets. Many of the participants had been aware of the proliferation in nonprofit
management programs across the country, and this could have also caused them to focus
more on organizational skills as opposed to programmatic ones. Without further data one
can not preclude that NRB nonprofits take their programmatic training for granted
however. It should also be noted that policy skills and environmental education were
mentioned, which obviously have a strong relationship to the missions of many NRB
nonprofit organizations.

Coursework feedback closely mirrored skill set discussions. Informal voting on
the most important courses pointed primarily to nonprofit management (broadly defined
to include leadership), general business skills, fundraising, project management,
communications, strategic planning, environmental policy and education, and internships,
although many more were mentioned. A number of additional themes surfaced that have

potential relevance to NRB nonprofit curricula as well. These included:

70

Skill threads / holistic approach
Teamwork and collaboration
Role playing

Program flexibility

Pragmatic focus

Skill threads, identified in the first group as areas that all employees in an
organization needed to proficient in, included marketing, public relations, fundraising,
and advocacy. Aspects of them needed to be found in a variety of classes and not just
taught as isolated courses. This was very similar to the comments in the second group
that nonprofit management was a holistic synthesis of a wide variety of skills that could
not just focus on any one area. The popular idea of a project management course, where
students have to be able to handle all facets of a project from A to Z on their own, seem
to point to this as well. This may also mean that a capstone course of sorts is needed to
show that the relationship among discreet skills has indeed been learned. A typical
comment:

Piggybacking off of what [another participant] said in terms of communications,

how every single person in the office should be able to eloquently feel confident

enough to relay what your purpose is, what your function is. . .the same thing
applies to fundraising. Every single person should have some understanding of
grantwriting, reporting on those, what it takes to fundraise outside of those grants
as well...how to do capital campaigns. . .how to go to an individual that just seems
like they might have the capacity to donate, be it $50 or $50.. .and to be able to
cultivate them.

Teamwork was another constant in many of the discussions. Working in
collaborative teams and groups seemed to be essential, and many recent students found
that the skills they had learned in doing group papers and projects was extremely helpful,

even if it seemed like a “pain in the butt” at the time. Being able to work with others, and

deciding how people with eclectic skills and values can then best work together was very

71

important. This put an emphasis on results and the mission of the organization over
individual employee needs.

Role-playing was brought up as an important course tool, especially when
multiple stakeholders were involved:

A class that would be phenomenal, would be where. . .you’re the developer,

you’re the engineer, you’re the environmentalist, and you’re the politician, and

you’re all in a workgroup, take on this role play and come to a solution. The
problem is we [students] are all role playing from a relatively similar background,
and a similar set of values. It would be much more realistic of what happens in
the real world. . .if you role played with people who have had different
indoctrinations.
Students from different majors or actual developers, politicians, etc. could be brought in
to interact with the students. Role-playing was mentioned as a teaching tool in
understanding board relations as well.

Flexibility in coursework was generally preferred, although some felt exposure to
certain learning opportunities should be mandatory (internships, business skills). Some
felt there should be flexibility based on differing missions and sizes of organizations, and
that the program should be able to transcend different disciplines and departments. It was
also mentioned that some people would already be proficient in some skills or be at
different stages in their careers, and that they should be able to pick and choose what
courses they needed to take from a program. In addition, some of these people would
have skills that other students could learn from:

In the masters program, you have people who are already involved in the

nonprofit sector, so how do you provide an environment where you can learn

from people that are out in the field. . .we miss that opportunity with our teacher
centered approaches in the classroom.

72

This pragmatic focus went beyond just wanting teachers that had real world experience.
The focus on internships, practical skills, real world projects, and relevant courses was a
constant throughout most of the discussions.

The results of both groups’ opinions regarding degree structure were consistent
with these findings as well. Students wanted flexibility in how the program’s “capstone”
should be designed. Practical alternatives were explored and an overwhelming
preference for non-academic research emerged. Feedback on bachelors programs was
mixed, a masters program was endorsed, and the relevance of Ph.D. programs were
questioned:

I really don’t see the practicality of getting a Ph.D. and working in a nonprofit. I

really don’t. I think even if you are going to become an executive director or the

board. of directors at any nonprofit, research is not as important as the hands on
experience.
The need for certificate and/or intemet courses was not specifically probed for and did
not emerge in any conversations.

In summary, the findings of the two focus groups were in basic agreement with
the literature review findings. They saw unique differences in their organizations which
made wholesale business or government classes irnpractical. They also identified a
strong need for “external environment” skillsets, an area that was sometimes lacking in
other programs. This seems appropriate based on the historical strategies of NRB
nonprofits and the advocacy role many of them play. There was in general a high degree
of enthusiasm for a NRB nonprofit management education program, both housed in the
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources and at the graduate level. No participants

indicated that they would rather enroll in a MBA or MPA based nonprofit program,

although this was not a primary study question.

73

CHAPTER FIVE

COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Building on the results of the literature review and focus groups, this chapter
focuses on two issues. The first is whether or not the current study supports the creation
of a NRB nonprofit management education program housed in the Department of
Resource Development at Michigan State University. The second is the formulation of a

curriculum model for such a program.

1) Rationale for Proceeding with a NRB Nonprofit Initiative
Whether or not the nonprofit sector warrants specific educational consideration at
the university level is a question that has been largely resolved in the literature. It is also
evident that the educational needs of advocacy based nonprofit organizations, such as
those of NRB nonprofits, have been largely ignored. These findings are also supported
by the evidence from this study.
The question then becomes one of deciding the appropriate focus of a program
and the best location to house such an initiative within the university. As Cohen notes:
There is no agreement about whether nonprofit management can be defined as a
generic field of professional study, like public management or business
management, or whether its uniqueness can be captured by a cluster of courses
that cover the most significant nonprofit management subjects, which are then
incorporated under existing graduate programs (1989: 42).
Are the new “stand alone” centers that teach “generic” nonprofit management the
answer? The success of many of these programs dedicated exclusively to nonprofit

management (e. g., the University of San Francisco, Case Western Reserve) has been

impressive (Young, 1999).

74

Not everyone shares this view, however. “Generic” nonprofit management
education has been criticized for creating cookie cutter programs that fail to address the
values of the sector and the programmatic coursework that is (at the very least) of equal
importance to the managerial success of nonprofit organizations. Arguments have been
made in the literature with titles as ominous as “Nonprofit Management Education: A
Field Whose Time Has Passed?” (Salamon,1998) that the real focus of these programs
should be on philanthropic values and the creation of professional citizens. A case is then
made for government and nonprofit students to be trained side by side in the same
schools. In “The End of Nonprofit Management Education”, Milofsky (1996) references
Yale University’s Peter Dobkin Hall, who also asserts that nonprofit programs should be
housed in other departments. He contends that true philanthropic research can not be
conducted in explicit nonprofit schools who derive their funding (and owe their
existence) to nonprofit organizations and their self serving agendas. This would seem to
run counter to much of the previously cited literature that advocates that nonprofit
management programs be explicitly designed to meet the needs of the nonprofit
community. However, it does point to the fact that the central question of what Mirabella
and Wish (2000) have coined as “The Best Place Debate” has not been resolved despite
the success of the larger stand alone nonprofit centers.

This issue becomes even more contentious in the case of subsector nonprofit
management education. Those in favor of stand-alone centers have made the argument
that training for “generic careers” in the nonprofit sector is advantageous (see Chapter
Two). However, assertions that this is beneficial in light of the short career ladders of

many nonprofit organizations are unpersuasive. Many students are already at work in a

75

field whose mission they love when they decide to come back to school. That is why
many are employed in nonprofit organizations in the first place. This is shown in the
profiling of typical NRB nonprofit executives (Snowl992z42):

The CEO sees his [or her] work in conservation as a lifelong career. . .He traces

his interest in the environment back to the early years of his life. ...a deep ethic

[was instilled] about the principles of conservation, ecology. and environmental

protection. It is this ethic - not careerism or the quest for power. . .that leads him

into his work and continues to refresh him. . .he has worked professionally in a

government agency, and perhaps in a for-profit business as well. But work in the

[nonprofit] setting is what appeals to him most.

Some switching no doubt does occur, particularly among other NRB organizations, but
NRB employment would appear to be kindred to a life’s work and not just another job.
And while some students may have a predilection for “societal good” and want to see
what opportunities a “generic” nonprofit graduate education might afford them, it also
seems likely that the vast majority of them would have made most career decisions prior
to applying to a masters program. “I didn’t want to go back to school — and pay money —
unless I knew there was something very specific that I was trained to do”, said a student
quoted in US. News and World Report’s story on cutting edge masters programs
(Hartigan, 2002).

Being pigeonholed to a specific field thus appears to be a weak argument for
generic management education in the case of NRB nonprofit leaders. But if they are not
the answer, would those housed in MPA, MBA, or MSW programs be any better? They
may be less generic, but are instead tinged in a manner equally unsuitable for NRB
nonprofit students (see Chapter Two). Should NRB nonprofit students get an education

in an MBA based program that fails to emphasize the organizations’ external

environment? Should they be based in an MPA program that prepares them to work in a

76

large, bureaucratic agency and not a small, entrepreneurial organization? Should the
majority of their advocacy skills be oriented towards health and human services rather
than natural resources, as would be the case with an MSW degree?

The answer is clearly no. Those that want to go into administrative roles in health
and human services organizations undoubtedly have a strong predilection for MSW
degrees, just as those who have an interest in the arts go to programs of art administration
and those with an interest in leading churches go to seminary schools. A potential NRB
nonprofit student should not be any different in their desire for a subsector focused
education. The best location for a program in all of these cases lies in the consideration
of three key issues. These can be posed as a series of questions that look to address “in
which department are”...

l) the organizational requirements of nonprofits best met (i.e., courses in
management, fundraising, etc.), oriented to the needs of a specific subsector?

2) the philosophical basis and values that underlie nonprofit employees practiced
and most evident?

3) the specific professional knowledge required for the execution of successful
missions and programs housed?

Any department that is able to fulfill all three needs would be considered ideal,
particularly in the case of smaller nonprofits who can not afford to hire separate
organizational and programmatic managers.

If any one of these considerations is not addressed, the initiative is likely to be
sub-optimal. These could alternatively produce discipline based managerial experts who
can manage a balance sheet but not their programs, ideological zealots who have the
passion but not the skills to succeed, or detached professionals who are quite capable but

do not have the necessary orientation towards public service. A successful NRB

77

program must be able to produce leaders who are adequately trained and inculcated in all
three.

This is obviously no small order, but a compelling case can be made that the
Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University, is up to the challenge.
Housed in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, current students already
have access to a broad base of natural resource coursework including forestry, fisheries
and wildlife, and natural resource policy, just to name a few. The department has also
built strong partnerships outside the College, and many of its faculty have the strong
interdisciplinary perspectives that many nonprofit students found attractive (Mirabella
and Wish, 2000). With a strong orientation towards being scholar-practitioners, they are
well connected within the community. The Department also explicitly calls for the
incorporation of values “up front” in their decision making criteria (Bawden, 2002). The
main ingredient that is missing is an availability of specific nonprofit oriented
coursework. The department has traditionally been a University leader in this area,
although only two nonprofit courses (RD 874 and RD891) have been offered in 2001 due
to budgetary constraints. In fact, many older courses related to leadership have been
previously offered and are still on the books. The Gordon Guyer Chair could be used to
provide the resources to reinvigorate these classes. As such, two of the requisite
ingredients (programmatic coursework and values) are well established, and a third
(nonprofit oriented courses) is already there but needs to be expanded. The Department
of Resource Development would therefore appear to be well positioned to further pursue

the creation of such a program.

78

Creating such a program within the Department of Resource Development would
also be easier than trying to create a stand-alone center from the ground up. Particularly
at their early stages, stand-alone nonprofit centers have been the hardest to create
(Young, 1999, 1998). Many nonprofit programs have instead been started by using a
“foot in the door” strategy, as shown by the results of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation’s
“Building Bridges” initiative (see Chapter Two). By doing so, such programs are able to
first address a clear-cut need on a smaller scale, and then determine if larger initiatives
are either needed or wanted. Particularly when they are housed in existing departments,
the initial fixed costs of startup are not as prohibitively substantial compared to entirely
new programs that might need their own buildings and new faculty. It may also be easier
to get the professors of one department behind a new initiative than it would be to try to
generate simultaneous interest across a variety of schools in the creation of a large
interdisciplinary center.

Further discussion into other factors associated with the creation of such a
program can not be adequately addressed here. University politics is an important issue
(Young, 1998), but falls outside the scope of this paper. Whether or not the Gordon
Guyer Chair receives full funding is unknown, as is the extent of student demand for such
a NRB nonprofit program. Hartigan’s (2002) article in US. News and World Report
does shine some light in regards to this last question, however. It advocates that newer
“smart degrees” programs that combine scholarly theory with career oriented practice are
the latest trend in higher education. Such programs have been advanced in other areas at
Michigan State, such as new initiatives in professional-science masters programs that

look to train scientists to work in industry (Hartigan, 2002). If a NRB program needed to

79

be expanded to increase demand, the Department of Resource Development is well
positioned with grounding in other advocacy based nonprofit subsectors (e. g., food
security, international aid, urban studies).

Compelling cases in both the short and long run can thus be made for the creation
of a NRB nonprofit education program in the Department of Resource Development at
Michigan State University. Initial explorations into the appropriate form and content of

such a program should now be started.

2) Curricular and Program Considerations
The results of the literature search and focus group research were both utilized in

the creation of the NRB nonprofit management program proposed below.

Key literature findings

The literature review of nonprofit management initiatives clearly points to the
need to include input from the local nonprofits themselves in the creation of such a
program. A number of additional considerations emerged from the nonprofit literature
that would need to be addressed in developing such a program. These are:
the differing organizational needs based on the sizes of nonprofits
the uncentralized, multisite nature of many nonprofits
the incorporation of values into a nonprofit program

the dearth of externally focused and volunteer oriented courses
the emphasis on a masters level education

Most NRB nonprofit organizations are small in size when compared to those of large
universities, public health and human service organizations, etc. Even the larger, national
NRB nonprofits tend to be decentralized and geographically spread. They will thus have

far different managerial needs than those of many larger, centralized businesses. Indeed,

80

Hjelmar (1996) sees organizational form as a key characteristic in determining the types
of actions that many NRB nonprofits can take. Form and mission must be in congruence
for maximal effect, and may need to be changed in tandem. Managerial competencies
will need to extend beyond discipline based proficiencies to include the philanthropic
values inherent to the nonprofit sector and their individual missions. Additional
coursework to address these and other needs must also include more externally focused
classes (e. g., advocacy, organization, lobbying, etc.) as well as those related to volunteer
recruitment and management.

There was a wide degree of variety both in terms of where nonprofit oriented
programs were housed within the university and the degrees that they offered. Bachelors
and Ph.D. level opportunities were by no means ignored, but masters level programs tend
to predominate (Young, 1999). The majority of these were roughly two years (some
longer) in duration, and many initiatives also offered concomitant certificate programs.

The literature exploring the Michigan NRB nonprofit sector also pointed to
several factors that need to be considered. These include:
the need for proficiency in government and industry sector interrelationships
the importance of internal and external collaboration in the nonprofit sector
the diversity of the NRB nonprofit sector
the importance of fundraising
a primary use of political, advocacy, land acquisition, and public education
organizational missions
' an increasing emphasis on cross-border (e.g., state, federal, international)

environmental factors

° the small size of many Michigan based NRB nonprofits
° the need to balance professionalism and passion

The importance of collaboration was perhaps the most important finding that came out of

81

the NRB nonprofit literature review. Collaboration included being able to successfully
work with the government and industry as well as with each other and non-NRB
nonprofits. Although there is great ideological diversity within the NRB nonprofit sector,
few if any organizations can successfully advance major issues on their own. Being able
to partner with other nonprofits, particularly those dealing with health, minority, and
faith-based organizations, is also critical.

Fundraising is also important due to relatively low levels of governmental,
foundation, and household giving. The need to grow the sector’s ranks of dues paying
members is therefore critical to the success of the movement and their ability to succeed
in their political, advocacy, and public education efforts. It is also an important
consideration for organizations typical of the small size of Michigan’s NRB nonprofit
sector, which can easily become dependent on just one source of revenue for the
operation of their organization. This small size also dictates than an emphasis must be
placed on the cultivation of managerial successors who have a deep understanding of the
organization and how it is run. They and other leaders must often be jacks of all trades
who have a broad skill base in a number of professions and disciplines (Snow, 1992).
They must be wary that in the process they don’t lose the passion and value’s centered

approach that is the hallmark of nonprofit organizations.

Focus groups: core competencies
The focus groups provided a wealth of information pertinent to the creation of a
NRB cuniculum. Skill sets viewed as important to mid-Michigan’s NRB nonprofits

were:

82

 

Communication skills, broadly defined
Business skills, broadly defined
Fundraising skills, broadly defined
Coping skills, broadly defined

Real life experiences

Board recruitment and relationships
Membership/volunteer management
Political and policy skills

Clearly, a wide variety of skills need to be considered for inclusion into coursework.
Participant feedback also emphasized that small size necessitates that leaders and
employees possess a broad array of skillsets in order to succeed. In addition to skills, the
groups identified characteristics that should either be directly or indirectly addressed in
individual classes or the program as a whole. These included:

Holistic approaches due to small size (jack of all trades)

The employment of teamwork and role playing in coursework

The inclusion of values and ethics in coursework

Flexibility in required coursework and “capstone” requirements
Pragmatic focus (adjunct faculty, real world projects)

The pragmatic focus also extended into the structure of the degree program. The need for
academic research was downplayed, and a masters level program was preferred over
bachelors or doctoral degrees.

One of the other identified needs was to have an overview course in the beginning
of the program so that students would more fully realize what work was like in the NRB
nonprofit sector, so that they knew “what they would be getting themselves into”. There
is merit here, especially in giving students an overview foundation for them to build upon
as they progress through the program. This would begin with a big picture approach and
then proceed by allowing them to focus on more specialized areas of study. Keeping the
number of classes limited in a two-year degree program will be at a premium, however,

and having one class designed as nothing but a “program survey” would be potentially

83

wasteful. Instead, the program will be designed in such a manner where the first
semester’s classes accomplish this overview objective in the process of teaching other
skills. The overview material would define who nonprofits are (i.e., sector diversity),
their values, and how they are organizationally structured. Intensive program screening
would be used to make sure that students understand the rigors of the sector prior to being
admitted to the program.

Some identified needs conflicted with each other to a certain extent. There was a
desire for flexibility in coursework. At the same time, feedback also indicated that the
small size of organizations called for a jack of all trades approach and a need for all
employees to have solid marketing, communications, and fundraising skills. Should such
courses then be required? They also stressed the importance of building relationships and
work together as teams. Although the use of cohort groups in admission practices was
not discussed in the focus groups, this would seem to be one way to achieve this goal. At
the same time, it would also cut down on the flexibility they had deemed as important.
Many also called for mandatory internships or outreach, which also runs contrary to
program flexibility.

These conflicts can be addressed in several ways. Cohort groups can be used for
all required courses, but not for electives. The number of required courses can also be
adjusted based on whether or not enrollees are new students or mid-career professionals.
Further flexibility considerations, in regards to internships and outreach, can be addressed
by providing a diverse mix of community partners and allowing mid—career professionals
to use their own nonprofit for experiential learning opportunities. In some cases tradeoffs

will still have to be made between flexibility and universal needs.

84

One last consideration from the focus groups has to do with the relative lack of
programmatic skills (e. g., scientific knowledge, mission specific technical knowledge)
mentioned by the participants as important. The focus groups also felt that biologists did
not make good N RB nonprofit managers, downplaying the importance of this knowledge
for leadership positions. Many hypotheses (see Chapter Four) were advanced as to why
this may have occurred. The results of Snow’s (1992) work were mixed in this regard.
Newly hired professional staff was graded highly in technical skills 89% of the time,
while they were more often graded poorly in environmental policy (27%), knowledge of
conservation history (24%), and scientific knowledge (23%).

This is an important issue, as a major concern of nonprofit programs is that they
graduate students who are effective programmatic leaders as well as just proficient
organizational managers (see above). Hjelmar (1996:6) added,

The role of science is of particular importance for the authority claimed by

environmental organizations. Unlike many other social movements, the

environmental movement claims a scientific basis and that gives the movement a

decisive advantage over other types of movements. Science is a strong partner in

political struggles.

How well the general public continues to believe in the credibility of
environmental scientists will be important, as many feel that NRB nonprofits sometimes
twist their findings (Kempton, Boster, Hartley, 1995). There is also a growing perception
that activist scientists are providing “junk ammunition” for NRB nonprofits to use in an
irrational or deceitful manner. Langton (198429-10) also saw science, and how NRB

nonprofits communicated scientific findings to the general public, as an important yet

difficult issue:

85

It has been and will continue to be a principal mission of the environmental
movement to assess the impact of science and technology. . . [yet] it is unrealistic
to expect any environmental group to be able to develop competency in more than

a few areas of environmental concern. . . [also], the environmental movement must

be as concerned with advocating realistic and positive solutions to environmental

problems as in warning about environmental hazards. This means that
environmentalists will have to gear educational efforts toward constructive
discovery and advocacy as well as towards dedicated opposition. Without the
former, the credibility of the latter will be minimized.

Langton (1984) offered several suggestions to achieve this balance, primarily by
increasing the collective knowledge base of the NRB movement and creating a “division
of labor” amongst the groups. Other collaborative efforts will be needed with university
professors, scientists, and economists as well.

The Natural Resource Nonprofit Management Program (NRNMP) at MSU should
address these scientific and technical issues, as one of the main strengths of housing a
NRB nonprofit management program in a NRB college is that it can concomitantly offer
both organizational and programmatic skill sets. It can do this primarily by making sure
that elective classes are available to address these needs. These are currently largely
available within the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, although attempts
should be made to make sure that more nonprofit relevant courses are offered. The
content of these courses could be addressed tangentially in nonprofit courses, but discreet
classes in these areas will undoubtedly also be warranted. The content of such classes
will not be addressed here, but examples for illustrative purposes might include
environmental science overviews, detailed policy and economics, the history of the NRB

nonprofit movement, communicating science to the public, real estate acquisition and

land trusts, international development, and ecotourism. Students could then take

86

electives based on the individual needs of the types of NRB nonprofits they wanted to

work for.

3) Curricular and Program Recommendations

Some assumptions will have to be made in the creation of this prototype

curriculum. How much money is available, how much staff can be used from other

departments, and how many students would enroll at a time are all important questions
that affect the breadth and quality of such an effort. These can not be adequately
addressed here, so an attempt will be made to create a program that is of “high quality”,
yet is also “realistic”. What constitutes such qualities is of course open to discussion, but
the researcher’s interpretation of these forms the basis of the curriculum provided here.
Changes based on actual conditions would have to be made, providing of course that the
University does indeed go ahead with such a program. This curriculum is by no means
definitive, and serves only to illustrate what such a program could look like based solely
on the assumptions and results of this study.

The Natural Resource Nonprofit Management Program would be housed within
the Department of Resource Development (RD), and offered as a separate “major
specialization” that would be recorded on students’ transcripts. It would have a
curriculum unique from the rest of the department’s coursework, although electives could
be chosen from a wide array of campus courses. Enrollees would be exempt from other
required courses within RD proper. In most cases, students from outside the NRNMP
would be allowed to take NRNMP courses (exceptions would be the capstone courses
and outreach). For simplicity’s sake, classes are categorized here as “NP 801”, etc., for

course catalog purposes.

87

The program would be at the masters level and would require 36 hours of credit
for graduation with a Masters of Science in Resource Development. Students would only
be accepted for enrollment starting in the fall and would be admitted as a cohort group
that would take the majority of their classes together. It would be designed to
accommodate three types of students based on their career stage in the workplace:

0 Bachelors graduates seeking an immediate masters level education

0 Bachelors graduates who have been working in the nonprofit sector and wish to
return to school (i.e., nonprofit mid-career students)

0 Bachelors graduates who have been working in other sectors and wish to return to

school (i.e., other mid-career students)
Course sequence

Course sequence and course descriptions are outlined below. Students without
substantial prior nonprofit work experience would be required to follow the course format
exactly. For those with major nonprofit experience (or those from the private or public
sector who are deemed to be particularly qualified in an area), NP 810-821 could be
waived in lieu of additional electives on a case by case basis. NP 801-804 and outreach

would be required courses in all cases.

Fall Semester One Spring Semester One
NP 801 NP 802
NP 810 NP 811
NP 820 NP 821

Fall Semester Two Spring Semester Two
NP 803 NP 804
Elective Elective
Outreach Outreach

88

NP 801 Collaboration I : The Nonprofit Sector & Public Advocacy

NP 802 Collaboration 2: Governmental & Private Sector Interaction

NP 803 Leadership 1 .' Personal Eflectiveness, Growth, & Vision

NP 804 Leadership 2: Strategic Planning & Project Management (capstone)

NP 810 Management: Human Resources, Governance, & Organizational Change
NP 811 Management: General Business Skills & Tax Law

NP 820 Marketing Orientation 1 .° Grants & F undraising

NP 821 Marketing Orientation 2: Promotion & Public Relations
NP 822 Local Nonprofit Outreach

Course Descriptions

NP 801 Collaboration 1 .° The Nonprofit Sector & Public Advocacy

This course would include a brief overview of the nonprofit sector and its history,
with a particular (although not exclusive) focus on NRB nonprofits. What does the sector
stand for, what are its values, and what does it want to accomplish? It would also stress
the collaborative nature of the NRB nonprofit sector with the general public and other
nonprofits. It would look to find areas of common ground with these varying groups,
identify their differences, and explore the reasons behind these differences (ways of
knowing) both within and out of the NRB nonprofit sector. Risk assessment and risk
management would be explored in this context, as would coalition building within the
nonprofit sector. Advocacy would be introduced as a concept. The aim of the course
would be for individuals to understand why they view the world the way they do, why
others view the world the way they do, the need for mutual understanding, and the
effectiveness of coalitions both within and outside of the NRB nonprofit community. It
would serve as a way for students to get to know each other, to learn to both tolerate and
appreciate differences, and to network together to function as a team. Role-playing and

real world guests would be employed.

89

NP 802 Collaboration 2: Governmental & Private Sector Interaction

This course would look to expand and solidify the tenets of NP 801. Ways of
knowing, risk assessment, and risk management would be expanded to include the views
of government and industry. Negotiation and conflict resolution management would be
taught here. Advocacy would be expanded to include lobbying and the basics of the
political system. The roles of both collaboration and confrontation would be explored.
An aim of the course would be to open the eyes of students to the plethora of allies and
opportunities available to them outside of their own worldview, and to learn methods to
help in creating those relationships. Students would also prepare for what nonprofit
partner they would be working with in the next semester (see NP 822). Role-playing and

real world guests would be employed.

NP 803 Leadership 1 : Personal Effectiveness, Growth, & Vision

This course would expand on the self-awareness of the students that was begun in
NP 801 and 802. At this stage they should start to think of what leadership role they
would like to play in NRB organizations and the nonprofit sector. The concepts of what
it takes to be an effective leader will be explored, including creating vision,
communicating vision, and leadership to achieve vision. Mission statements and public
speaking will be given emphasis. Factors addressing time management, multi-task
management, ethics, and stress reduction through life balance will also be explored. An
aim of this course is to produce the beginnings of confident, refreshed, and focused

leaders who engender trust and inspiration. Real world guests would be used.

90

NP 804 Leadership 2: Strategic Planning & Project Management (capstone)

This capstone course will take leadership to the next level by offering students an
opportunity to synthesize all that they have learned and to showcase how their leadership
would be applied in real life. Both short and long term organizational planning would be
taught in conjunction with effective project management. A major part of this course
would take place in conjunction with the outreach efforts that students would be
concurrently making in NP 822 (outreach). This would include class dialog on the issues
both they and their partner organizations were facing during the course of their outreach.
They would also be required as part of the duties of NP 804 to write a synopsis of the
outreach project from NP 822 and present it to the students taking NP 802. This would

allow for a student transition with the outreach projects.

NP 810 Management: Human resources, Governance, and Organizational Change

This class would be based on the assumption that organizational form often
dictates what a nonprofit is able to do and how well it performs. The function of the
board and how it is structured would be a primary emphasis, as would the role of proper
board members. In addition to regular employees, volunteer and membership
management would also be discussed. This comprehensive “structural picture” would
then be analyzed to see if it was in congruence with the organization’s mission and
strategy. How the organization could change to meet changing missions would also be
explored. An emphasis would be place on the needs of small organizations,

entrepreneurship, and multi-site factors. How to run effective meetings would also be

91

ll

taught. Computer programs relevant to membership management would be employed.

Guest speakers and role-playing would also be used.

NP 811 Management: General Business Skills & Tax Law

This class would teach the basics of the accounting, finance, and statistic skills
necessary to effectively run a nonprofit organization. This class could be waived for
experienced students who wanted more in depth skills, and an elective taken from the
school of business could be used instead. As an example, a comprehensive nonprofit
accounting course is already offered at Michigan State. The tax law taught here would
also be at a basic level, essentially teaching students what forms they need to file and
who to turn to for more detailed advice. The importance of why it is important to be
fiscally responsible would be stressed, as would employee liability for breach of fiduciary

trust. Real world guest lecturers could be used.

NP 820 Marketing Orientation 1: Grants & F undraising

This course would be designed to teach students the importance of a marketing
orientation in their organization, which includes a mission and client focus. The writing
of a successful grant often depends on how well the writer knows their organization and
what it does, so how to perform a marketing analysis will be taught. Good writing skills
will also be emphasized. Foundation grants will be discussed as one source of revenue,
and actual grants may be written, either for a student organization within the department
(see below) or real world nonprofits. Brenda Wrigley (2000) is a Michigan State faculty
member with experience in the use of real clients in classes, as is current Resource

Development Visiting Professor Norm Brown. Revenue streams outside of grants and

92

the importance of diversification (e. g., workplace giving, cause related marketing, capital
campaigns, etc.) will also be explored. The computer will be used to explore foundation

databases.

NP 821 Marketing Orientation 2: Promotion & Public Relations

This course will expand on what was taught in NP 820 and will teach students
how to produce brochures, advertisements, and web pages for member recruitment and
other purposes. It will also delve into public relations as a tool for the proper
dissemination of scientific knowledge and organizational mission to the general public
and other target markets. Media relations will be an important aspect of the class, and
students will have to prepare press releases and be interviewed on camera. As in NP 821,
efforts will be made to have students partner with and work on real world nonprofit

projects with outside partners. Guest speakers will be employed.

NP 822 Local Nonprofit Outreach

Outreach would be a necessary component of the program, both due to its ability
to teach from a real world perspective and to help fulfill the mission of a land grant
university. At this point in the program students will have acquired the requisite skill
base to be of genuine use to these nonprofits. Students will perform their outreach in
teams of at least two people to further ensure a high level of quality. In the cases of mid-
career students who are currently working for a nonprofit, they would have the option of
using their own organization as a partner.

NRB organizations would be selected based on their willingness to partner with

the university, their level of need, and their ability to enter into long term contracts of

93

mutual understanding on how the outreach will be conducted. Both these organizations
and the University would have responsibilities for ensuring opportunities for quality
interaction, professional students, and (perhaps) fundraising to support the NRNMP. In
the last semester, the outreach course would be integrated into the leadership capstone
course, where students would report on what was transpiring with their NRB partners.
Organizations would aid in the grading of the students, and an unacceptable grade would
result in non-graduation from the program. Both the capstone course and outreach would
need to be retaken. A diversity of NRB programs at the local level will be used.

This outreach would only represent a 3 credit hour course per each semester
taken, and would require “working” at the nonprofit for the equivalent of one full day a
week. However, three factors would make this arrangement attractive to nonprofit
organizations that are more used to the structure of traditional intern programs. The first
would be the fact that the students are providing assistance in teams, so they would be
gaining more than just one “temporary employee”. Secondly, there would be an assigned
faculty member whose job it was to work with the teams, providing guidance and real-
time quality assurance. Lastly, the same teams would stay with an organization for the
whole year (both semesters). With this much time they would not only be able to help in
the crafting of solutions, but also in their implementation. These students would thus be
grounded in the organization and the nonprofits would not have to worry about meeting
new faces every semester. Organizations would be assigned to the students at the end of
the prior year, and it would be the responsibility of the current students performing
outreach to provide a “learning paper” and presentation to the next group of students who

would next be working with the organization.

94

Other considriapions

The NRNMP, as thus constructed, would address the skills and knowledge
necessary for preparing students for successful employment in the nonprofit field. The
importance of values and ethics would be taught in all courses, in context with the class
material, rather than as an explicit “ethics” course. This assures that this important area
is not treated as an afterthought and instead permeates the entire program.

In addition, many of the skills that would be taught in these courses have been
previously identified as areas of deficiency in bachelors graduates from the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State University (Heyboer, 2000). While
these findings could be interpreted as areas that the bachelors programs need to address,
they could alternatively be viewed as areas that need to be addressed at the masters level.
If they are not, students will have the same deficiencies when they graduate with their
masters as they will with their bachelors.

Formal academic research that mandates the writing of a Plan A or Plan B paper
would not be required for graduation. This does not mean that a capstone experience is
not required, however, as the student’s performance in NP804 and outreach would be
used in the place of research. “Learning papers” from their outreach would be required,
grounded more in pragmatic experience than theory.

Snow (1992) had a series of non-curriculum related suggestions for a NRB
nonprofit program that should also be considered. Most have been addressed, but two
warrant specific attention. First, increased communication between the university and the
NRB nonprofits should continue beyond the initial stages of creating a NRB program.

These could include discussions on the hosting of conferences, bringing in outside

95

speakers, dialogs on research needs, and a distance learning certificate program.
Secondly, student organizations devoted to NRB issues should flourish on campus. This
is largely already the case at Michigan State, but it could be improved by creating a
student organization for the program that is set up and run as a formal nonprofit distinct
from the university. Students could “learn by doing” in running this organization.

Lastly, the NRNMP could have applicability beyond the Department of Resource
Development. In this sense it could be used as a pilot program (to evaluate demand, etc.),
and its experience expanded to other schools. The core courses would already be
established, and with adjustment could include the subsector specific needs of other small
nonprofit advocacy organizations. As mentioned earlier, this could be started within the
Department of Resource Development itself in such areas as urban development, food
security, and international development. Caution would need to be exercised, however,
so that the end result was not just another “generic” nonprofit program similar to what is

already available on the market.

Future areas of study

The results of this study should be viewed as only the beginnings of a work in
progress. As an example, this study identified a clear need to include feedback from
NRB nonprofits and their leaders in the creation of the NRNMP, but other stakeholders
should not be ignored. Additional input through focus groups, interviews, or surveys
should be sought from university administrators, faculty, students, and funders. NRB
nonprofit volunteers and board members should also be included, as this study used paid

staff members as its primary participants.

96

This study was conducted under the auspice of being a management program for
N RB nonprofit leaders. Considering the size of NRB nonprofits, many of their staff
employees have also been forced to operate as “jacks of all trades”. Although some non-
executive director staff were used in this study, it would be interesting to explore if the
NRN MP could serve as a defacto NRB professional employee program, and not just a
management program per se.

Many factors that would affect the creation and sustainability of such a program
also need to be explored. What are the political issues within the university that need to
be addressed? How are staffing issues dealt with in a professional nonprofit program,
particularly in research based schools that base tenure on more than just teaching? How
can the importance of values and ethics be used in a manner that both drives and
differentiates the program, yet does not attempt to indoctrinate into its students what their
values should be? Assessment criteria for the program should also be established
concomitantly with curriculum development. Does a skill-based curriculum actually
translate into organizational success? Are there some requisite skills that simply can not
be taught at the university level?

This thesis looked in detail at only one of the many nonprofit subsectors — the
NRB nonprofits. But there are many other subsectors that do not have adequate
educational opportunities at the university level, especially non-health and human
services based advocacy groups. Most research has instead focused on creating “generic”
programs, or has attempted to answer the “great place debate” within the narrow confines

of existing MBA, MPA, or MSW programs. As such, more subsector specific research

needs to be conducted.

97

APPENDIX

RECRUITMENT LETTER

Dear

We are conducting an investigational study at Michigan State University that is looking
to see what form and content environmental nonprofit education should take at MSU.

We feel that environmental nonprofit organizations could provide us with valuable
insight, and we would be interested in having you participate in a focus group with 7-9
other people to share your opinions. Your thoughts and ideas would be important in
determining if a special environmental nonprofit program is needed at Michigan State,
and what form it might take to be the most useful to its graduates and their employers.
There will be no formal payment for participation in the study, although dinner will be
provided.

The focus group would be videotaped, although results would be kept confidential and no
one outside of the investigators would have access to the tapes. At no point would
individual names of participants be used for publication or in any other correspondence.
Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

If you are interested in participating please contact me at (517) 353—9501 and we can
check with schedule availability and you can be sent a study consent form.

Sincerely,

Greg Ostrander
Graduate Student

Department of Resource Development
Michigan State University

98

CONSENT FORM

Consent Form

Thank you for your interest in participating in the focus group on the educational needs
of environmental nonprofit organizations. Participation is voluntary, and you may
choose not to participate for any reason. If you choose to participate in the study, please
sign and date the form below where indicated. After signing the consent form you may
still drop out of the study at any time for any reason. This includes any time prior to the
actual focus group or even at any time during the focus group session itself.

 

 

X (PRINT)
X (SIGN)
X (DATE)

 

THIS FOCUS GROUP WILL RUN FOR APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR. THERE
WILL ONLY BE ONE SESSION AND NO OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR
INDVIDUALS WHO WISH TO PARTICIPATE.

The focus group will be videotaped. However, results would be kept confidential and no
one outside of the above investigators would have access to the tapes. At no point would
individual names of participants (or their organization, if any) be used for publication or
any other correspondence. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law.

If you have further questions regarding the study or your consent please contact either of
the study investigators:

Greg Ostrander Jo Ann Beckwith, Ph.D.

310 A Natural Resources Building 310 A Natural Resources Building
DeWitt, MI 48820 East Lansing, MI 48824

(51 7) 353-9501 (51 7) 432-7733

If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject please contact Michigan
State University:

Ashir Kumar, Ph.D., Chair

University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
(5] 7) 355-2180

99

REFERENCES

Barstow, David. 2001. In Congress, Harsh Words for the Red Cross. In: The New York
Times. November 7.

Bawden, Richard. 2002. Personal correspondence. April 2.

Billitteri, Thomas. 1997. Research on Charities Falls Short: Leaders of Nonprofit Groups
Point to Work They Can’t Use. In: The Chronicles of Philanthropy. Vol. 10(4),
31-35.

Beckwith, JoAnn. 2001. Natural Resource Executive Academy: Focus Group Results.
Manuscript, Michigan State University.

Berry, Joyce, and Gordon, John. 1993. Environmental Leadership: Developing Effective
Skills and Styles. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Brown, Norman. 2001. Personal correspondence. November 2.

Browne, William et. al. 1995. Michigan Environmental Politics: Battleground of the
Political Titans. In: Michigan Politics and Government. London: University of
Nebraska Press.

Brudney, Jeffrey, and Stringer, Gretchen. 1998. Higher Education in Volunteer
Administration: Exploring and Critiquing the State of the Art. In: In: Nonprofit
Management Education, U .S. and World Perspectives, Michael O’Neill and
Kathleen Fletcher, (eds.). London: Praeger.

Bullard, Robert. 2000. People of Color Environmental Groups. Atlanta: Environmental
Justice Resource Center.

Cohen, Lilly. 1989. Educating and Training Managers for the Sector. In: Careers for
Dreamers and Doers, a Guide to Management Careers in the Nonprofit Sector,
Lilly Cohen and Dennis Young, (eds.). New York: The Foundation Center.

Cook, Jonathan. 1988. Managing Nonprofits of Different Sizes. In: Educating Managers
of Nonprofit Organizations, Michael O’Neill and Dennis Young, (eds.). London:
Praeger.

C yert, Richard. 1988. The Place of Nonprofit Management Programs in Higher
Education. In: Educating Managers of Nonprofit Organizations, Michael O’Neill
and Dennis Young, (eds.). London: Praeger.

Detroit Free Press. 2001. Editorial: Let Charity Prevail. October 28.

100

Dempsey, Dave. 2001. Ruin and Recovery, Michigan ’s Rise as a Conservation Leader.
Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.

Dimaggio, Paul. 1988. Nonprofit Managers in Different Fields of Service: Managerial
Tasks and Management Training. In: Educating Managers of Nonprofit
Organizations, Michael O’Neill and Dennis Young, (eds.). London: Praeger.

Drucker, Peter. 1990. Managing the Nonprofit Organization. New York: Harper
Business.

Eisenberg, Pablo. 1999. Academic Centers Don’t Develop Charity Leaders. In: The
Chronicles of Philanthropy. Vol. 11 (l 1), 39-40.

Fischer, Frank. 2000. Citizens, Experts, and the Environment. London: Duke University
Press.

Gronbjerg, Kirsten. 2001. Foreword. In: The Nature of the Nonprofit Sector, Steven Ott
(ed). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Grossman, Allen, and Rangan, Kasturi. 2001. Managing Multisite Nonprofits. In:
Nonprofit Management and Leadership. Vol. 11(3), 321-337.

Hall, Mary. 1994. Core Competencies for the Efi‘ective Not-for-Profit Executives.
Manuscript, Seattle University.

Hall, Mary. 2002. Personal correspondence. March 27.

Hall, Peter. 1994. Historical Perspectives on Nonprofit Organizations. In: The Jossey-
Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management, Robert Herman (ed).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hall, Peter. 1995. Theories and Institutions. Nonprofit and Volunteer Sector
Quarterly. Volume 24(1), 5-13.

Hartigan, Rachel. 2002. Smart New Degrees Take Center Stage. Online. <www.usnews.
Com./usnews/edu/beyond/grad/gbrealworl.htm>. March 25‘“.

Herisse, Rockfeler. 1995. Factors Associated with the Institutionalization of Nonprofits:
A Case Study of Extension Assisted Organizations in Michigan. Dissertation,
Michigan State University.

Herman, Robert, and Heimovics, Dick. 1994. The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit
Leadership and Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

101

Heyboer, Gwyn. 2000. Perceptions About Undergraduate Programs: A Study of Recent
Graduates of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State
University and Their Employers. Masters thesis. Michigan State University.

H jelmar, Ulf. 1996. The Political Practice of Environmental Organizations. Aldershot,
England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Hopkins, Bruce. 1993. A Legal Guide to Starting and Managing a Nonprofit
Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Hodgkinson, Virginia, and Weitzman, Murray. 2001. Overview: The State of the
Independent Sector. In: The Nature of the Nonprofit Sector, Steven Ott (ed).
Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Independent Sector. 2001. The New Nonprofit Almanac. Online. <www.
independentsector.org/programs/research/naO1main.html>. November 9, 2001.

Kempton, Willett, Boster, James, and Hartley, Jennifer. 1995. Environmental Values in
American Culture. London: The MIT Press.

Kline, Benjamin. 1997. First Along the River: A Brief History of the U .5. Environmental
Movement. San Francisco: Acada Books.

Komacki, John. 2001. Personal correspondence. November 15.

Langton, Stuart. 1982. Environmental Leadership: A Sourcebook for Stafl and Volunteer
Leaders of Environmental Organizations. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington
Books.

Larson and Wilson, 2001. Building Bridges Initiative Cluster Evaluation; Survey of
Nonprofit Management Students. Online. <www.centerpointinstitute.org/Bridges/

Papers&Reports/papers.htm>. November 9, 2001.

League of Conservation Voters. 2000. Michigan Statewide Survey. Santa Monica,
California: Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates.

Levine, Samantha. 2001. Red Crossroads. In: U.S. News & World Report. November 19.
Levy, Reynold. 1988. Curing Benign Neglect: Alternative Approaches to Nonprofit
Management Education. In: Educating Managers of Nonprofit
Organizations, Michael O’Neill and Dennis Young, (eds.). London: Praeger.
Light, Paul. 1999. The New Public Service. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Light, Paul. 2000. Making Nonprofits Work: A Report on the Tides of Nonprofit
Management Reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

102

Michigan Out of Doors. 2002. Editorial. Vol. 56 (5): 4-5.

Milofsky, Carl. 1996. The End of Nonprofit Management Education? In: Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Vol. 25 (3), 277-282.

Mirabella, Roseanne. 2002. Personal correspondence. April 1.

Mirabella, Roseanne, and Wish, Naomi. 1999. Educational Impact of Graduate Nonprofit
Degree Programs. Perspectives of Multiple Stakeholders. Nonprofit
Management and Leadership, Vol. 9(3):329-340.

Mirabella, Roseanne, and Wish, Naomi. 2000. The Best Place Debate. In: Public
Administration Review. Vol. 60 (3).

Mirabella, Roseanne, and Wish, Naomi. 2001. Nonprofit Management Education:
Current Offerings in University Based Programs. Online. <http://pirate.shu.
edu/~mirabero/Kellogg.html>. November 9.

Morgan, David. 1988. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications.

Moyer, Mel. 1994. Marketing for Nonprofit Managers. In: The Jossey-Bass Handbook of
Nonprofit Leadership and Management, Robert Herman (ed). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Norton, Bryan. 1991. Toward Unity Among Environmentalists. New York: Oxford
University Press.

O’Neill, Michael, and Fletcher, Kathleen, (eds.). 1998. Nonprofit Management
Education, U.S. and World Perspectives. London: Praeger.

O’Neill, Michael and Young, Dennis, (eds.). 1988. Educating Managers of Nonprofit
Organizations. London: Praeger.

Ostrander, Greg. Unpublished paper. The Wary American Public and Environmental
Decision Making. December 1, 2001

Ostrander, Susan, and Schervish, Paul. 1990. Giving and Getting: Philanthropy as a
Social Relation. In: Critical Issues in American Philanthropy. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Ott, J. Steven. 2001. The Nature of the Nonprofit Sector. Boulder, Colorado: Westview
Press.

Putnam, Robert. 1995. Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. New York:
Simon and Schuster.

103

Reinhardt, Forest. 2000. Down to Earth: Applying Business Principles to Environmental
Management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Rosenbaum, Walter. 1998. Environmental Politics and Policy. Washington, DC:
CQ Press.

Roush, Jon. 2002. Personal correspondence. April 7.

Salamon, Lester. 1997. The Current Crisis. In: The Nature of the Nonprofit Sector, Steven
Ott (ed). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Salamon, Lester. 1998. Nonprofit Management Education: A Field Whose Time
has Passed? . In: Nonprofit Management Education, U.S. and World
Perspectives, Michael O’Neill and Kathleen Fletcher, (eds.). London: Praeger.

Salamon, Lester, and Anheier, Helmut. 1997. Defining the Nonprofit Sector: A Cross
National Analysis. New York: Manchester University Press.

Shabecoff, Philip. 1993. A Fierce Green Fire, The American Environmental Movement.
New York: Hill and Wang.

Skene, Erin. 2000. Setting the Record Straight on Michigan’s Nonprofit Community.
Lansing, Michigan: The Michigan Public Policy Initiative.

Slavin, Simon. 1988. Different Types of Nonprofit Managers. In: Educating Managers of
Nonprofit Organizations, Michael O’Neill and Dennis Young, (eds.). London:
Praeger.

Smucker, Bob. 1999. The Nonprofit Lobbying Guide. Washington, DC: Independent
Sector.

Snow, Donald. 1992. Inside the Environmental Movement: Meeting the Leadership
Challenge. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Sturtevant, Deborah. 1997. Spectator or Participant? A Study of Charitable Nonprofit’s
Political Advocacy. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University.

Taylor, April. 2001. GOP Pushes Faith Based Plan. In: The Detroit News. April 26.

Tschirhart, Mary. 1998. Nonprofit Management Education: Recommendations Drawn
From Three Stakeholder Groups. In: Nonprofit Management Education, U .S. and
World Perspectives, Michael O’Neill and Kathleen Fletcher, (eds.). London:

Praeger.

U.S. News and World Report. 2001. Best Graduate Schools. Online. <www.usnews.
com/usnews/edu/beyond/gradrank>. March 25, 2002.

104

Van Buren, Michael. 1990. Reaching Out: America ’5 Volunteer Heritage. Battle Creek,
Michigan: The WK. Kellogg Foundation.

Van Til, Jon. 1994. Nonprofit Organizations and Social Institutions. In: The Jossey-Bass
Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management, Robert Herman (ed). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Weber, George. 1996. Growing Tomorrow’s Leaders. In: The Leader of the Future,
Frances Hesselbein, Marshall Goldsmith, and Richard Beckhard (eds). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Weisbred, Burton. 1988. The Nonprofit Economy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.

Witter, Scott. 2001. The Dr. Gordon E. Guyer Endowed Professorship in Natural
Resource Conservation and Preservation and Graduate Fellowship in
Aquatic/Environmental Entomology. Internal Document, Department of Resource
Development. September 11.

Wish, Naomi, and Mirabella, Roseanne. 1998. Curricular Variations in Nonprofit
Management Graduate Programs. In: Nonprofit Management & Leadership. Vol.
9(1), 99-109.

Wolf, Thomas. 1999. Managing a Nonprofit Organization in the Twenty-First Century.
New York: Fireside.

Wrigley, Brenda. 2000. Exploring the Use of Real Clients in the PR Campaigns Course.
In: Journalism & Mass Communication Educator. Winter Edition, 47-58.

Young, Dennis. 1998. Games Universities Play: An Analysis of the Institutional Contexts
of Centers for Nonprofit Study. In: Nonprofit Management Education, U.S. and
World Perspectives, Michael O’Neill and Kathleen Fletcher, (eds.). London:
Praeger.

Young, Dennis. 1999. Nonprofit Management in the United States: Current
Developments and Future Prospects. In: Journal of Public Affairs Education. Vol.
5(1): 13-23.

Young, Dennis. 2001. Government Failure Theory. In: The Nature of the Nonprofit
Sector, Steven Ott (ed). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

105