VOLUNTARY ORGAN-IZATTONS AND THETR COOPERATIVE INTERACTION PATTERNS 7 ON A STATE LEVEL 7 7 Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHTGAN STATE UNWERSTW BENJAMEN HGNG YEP 1970 LI B RA R Y Michigan State University a" | w w. -" w. ‘ I’Hrs'v This is to certify that the thesis entitled VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR COOPERATIVE INTERACTION PATTERNS ON A STATE LEVEL presented by Benjamin Hong Yep has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Eh..D_.__degree in_,Ele.m.._& Spec. Edu. MflM Major professor Ma 11 1 Date y ’ 9 7 O 0-169 ‘1'” _ (1C. yea—SM- @s :22] ‘73) ABSTRACT VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR COOPERATIVE INTERACTION PATTERNS ON A STATE LEVEL By Benjamin Hong Yep Professionals in the fields of diagnostic medicine, special education, and vocational rehabilitation are beginning to realize that the medical etiological differences among handicapped groups are far less signi— ficant than the commonality of their needs for particular services. Most communities outside of major metropolitan areas do not have sufficient numbers of a particular category of handicapped persons to support comprehensive medical, psychological, social, educational, vocational, and residential services. Therefore, if such services are to be provided for handicapped persons, there must be joint planning and cooperation among voluntary organi- zations representing the different groups. With the major role that voluntary organizations play in providing services for the handicapped, it is evident that a study designed to provide important information regarding better understanding interagency cooperation among Benjamin Hong Yep voluntary organizations will be useful in more effectively implementing rehabilitation programs. The general purpose of this research was to study interagency cooperative relationships among related voluntary organizations on a state level in the field of mental retardation and related disabilities and to examine different sociological and psychological factors that appear to affect interaction among these organizations. The research design for this study was based on a theoretical model of interorganizational relations that was recently developed in the Department of Sociology at Iowa State University. This model is designed to measure cooperative interaction among organizations and to identify organizational, interorganizational, and social psychological variables that affected cooperative interaction among organizations. Four voluntary health organizations were selected for intensive study. Both case study information and questionnaire data for evaluation of exploratory hypotheses were collected from the four organizations. Personnel from the organizations interviewed included the executive staff and executive board members. Instrumentation used in this study was adapted from questionnaries used in previous studies done at Iowa State University in this area. Procedures for analysis of findings included the case study method, the use of nonparametric statistics, and visual inspection of data. Benjamin Hong Yep Eleven of the twelve exploratory hypotheses relating interorganization interaction to the general categories of organizational resources, interorganizational consensus, and previous contracts between organizational personnel were not supported. Case study data suggested that professionalism of staff, organizational stability- instability, and relationships between executive staff were significant factors in affecting interorganizational interaction among voluntary organizations. Further exploratory research is needed to build a larger theoretical base for interorganizational relations and to develop more adequate instrumentation to test and make application of this theoretical model of inter- organizational relations. VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR COOPERATIVE INTERACTION PATTERNS ON A STATE LEVEL By Benjamin Hong Yep A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Elementary and Special Education 1970 In Mr. Memorium Bow Yep ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The undertaking anC completion of a thesis involves the support and cooperation of many people besides the writer. Some of these people I would like to acknowledge at this time. I would like to express my deep appreciation to my doctoral committee chairman, Dr. Donald Burke, whose guidance and kindness was instrumental in the completion of this study. I am indebted to Dr. Gerald Klonglan, friend and colleague at Iowa State University whose research provided the theoretical framework for this study, and whose counsel was invaluable. I would like to express my appreciation to the other members of my doctoral committee, Dr. Charles Hanley, Dr. John Jordan, and Dr. John Suehr who provided extensive assistance in the preparation of this thesis. Mention must be made of a friend, Dr. Lee Reynolds whose completion of his doctoral program in spite of very difficult circumstances, served as an inspiration to this writer. Thanks are extended to John Wilson and Garrett Crow who provided friendship and lodging to the writer on his many trips to East Lansing. Thanks also to Sister Anne Lawrence for her friendship. iii Finally, the writer would like to acknowledge the eVer constant support and prayers of his wife-to—be, Jacqueline Arlando. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF Fl? JUITES o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . Purpose of the Study . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . Special Education and Rehabilitation Literature . . . . . . . . . Sociological Research . . . . . . . Theoretical Framework . . . . . Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . Sources of Data . . . . . . . . . . Research Design . . . . . Description of Interorganizational Inter- action as the Dependent Variable . . Description of Organizational Resources as the First Major Category of Independent Variables, Statement of General and Specific Exploratory Hypotheses, and Procedures . . . . . . . Description of Interorganizational Consensus as the Second Major Category of Independent Variables, Statement of General and Spe- cific Exploratory Hypotheses, and Pro- cedures . . . . . . . . . . . V Page ii iii vii ix i—J (13th 10 ll 13 18 25 27 28 3O 31 Al “5 Chapter Description of Previous Interpersonal Relationships Between Organizations as the Third Major Category of Independent Variables, Statement of General and Specific Exploratory Hypotheses, and Procedures . . . . . . . . . Instrumentation and Collection of Data Procedures for Analysis of Findings . IV. FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . Description of the Voluntary Organizations Interorganizational Interaction Findings Restatement of Exploratory Hypotheses with Presentation of Findings . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . v. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary . . . . . . . . . . Discussion and Conclusions . . . Recommendations for Future Research . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page “9 56 60 61 69 89 90 90 92 105 107 Ill LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Comparison of interaction scores for each voluntary organization with a public agency and with other voluntary organizations . . 68 2. Comparison between size of organizational budget and interaction scores . . . . . 7O 3. Comparison between number of organizational staff and interaction score . . . . . . 71 A. Comparison between the number of services offered by an organization and its inter— action scores . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Comparison between two organizations regarding their degree of domain agreement and their mean interaction score . . . . . . . . 7A \J'l 6. Comparison between two organizations regarding their major source of funding and mean interaction score . . . . . . . . . 75 7. Comparison between two organizations regarding their perception of interorganizational dependence and their mean interaction score . 76 8. Comparison between paired organizations regard- ing the occurrence of previous formal contact between executive staffs and their organiza- tions' present mean interaction score . . . 79 9. Comparison between paired organizations regard- ing the occurrences of previous informal executive staff contact and their organiza- tions' present mean interaction score . . . 80 10. Comparison between paired organizations regard- ing the occurrence of previous formal contact between executive boards and their organiza- tions' present mean interaction score . . . 82 vii Table ll. l2. 13. Page Comparison between paired organizations regard- ing the occurrence of previous informal contact between executive boards and their organizations' present mean interaction score . . . . . . 83 Comparison between paired organizations regarding the occurrence of previous overlapping board membership and these organizations' present mean interaction score . . . . . . . . . 85 Comparison between paired organizations regarding the occurrence of previous contact other than executive staff and executive board contact and their organizations' present mean inter- action score . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Tabular summary of findings for e general and 12 specific exploratory hypotheses . . . . . 89 Structural characteristics of organizations in this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Staff characteristics of organizations in this StUdy o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 9)4 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. A typology of voluntary organizations . . . 15 2. Influence relationships among categories of variables . . . . . . . . . . . . 2A 3. Research design showing independent and dependent variables . . . . . . . . . 33 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem Klonglan (1969) stated that there appeared to be the need for rehabilitation planning and coordination of organizational services because: (1) the health and wel— fare problems of most handicapped persons involved syndromes of interrelated problems such that a solution to one problem could best be accomplished only in con— junction with the solution to other problems. These interrelated problems of handicapped persons included such areas as medical, psychological, social, educational, vocational, and legal, (2) there existed a large number of specialized public and private agencies providing ser- vices for handicapped persons which made coordination of these agencies' services necessary if there was not to be the omission and duplication of different services needed by handicapped persons and their families. Most of the literature in the field of special education and rehabilitation has stressed the need for systematic planning and coordination of services for handicapped persons but failed to specify how to accom- plish these objectives. These services for handicapped persons include medical, psychological, social, educational, vocational and legal services. Edward Suchman (1965) noted that relatively little analysis of the organizations responsible for dispensing rehabilitation services is available. He pointed out that the literature in this field was concerned primarily with the philosophy and goals of rehabilitation rather than with the implementation of programs for rehabilitation. He further wrote that the current status of the field of rehabilitation was badly handicapped by an inability to conceptualize the rehabilitation process in terms of social and psychological theory. He stated that much of the future development of the field of rehabilitation depended upon advances in the areas of both basic research and applied evaluation. Wessen (1965) reported that over two thousand different organizations in the United States provided rehabilitation services for handicapped persons and that the majority of rehabilitation programs, nearly 80 per cent, were controlled by private organizations without tax support. Therefore, private organizations are playing the major role in providing rehabilitation services for the handicapped. Among the private organizations providing services for handicapped persons are special interest and parent groups. These special interest and parent groups are concerned with particular problems such as mental retardation, VV mental illness and cerebral palsy and attempt to provide the_total range of rehabilitation services needed by a particular handicapped group. Professionals in the field of diagnostic medicine, special education, and vocational rehabilitation are beginning to realize that the medical etiological differ- ences among handicapped groups are far less significant than the commonality of their needs for particular services. Most communities outside of major metropolitan areas do not have a sufficient number of a particular category of handicapped persons to support comprehensive medical, psychological, social, educational, vocational, and residential services. Therefore, if such services are to be provided for handicapped persons, there must be joint planning and cooperation among the voluntary organizations representing the different handicapped groups. This joint cooperation among voluntary organizations must, begin at a state level where the systematic planning for rehabilitation services is conducted for the different areas of the state as well as down to the local county levels. Recently, the federal government provided funds to state agencies to develop comprehensive state plans to combat mental retardation and related problems. Under this program, most states have made considerable progress in coordinating the planning and programming of public agencies providing services for the retarded. However, little progress has been made in coordinating the efforts of private voluntary organizations. In addition, the President's Committee on Mental Retardation (1969) listed as one of its highest priority areas for 1969-1970, the study and development of proposals for the improvement in coordination of mental retardation at the state and local level. With the major role that voluntary organizations play in providing services for the handicapped, it is evident that a study designed to provide important information regarding better understanding interagency cooperation among voluntary organizations will be useful in more effectively implementing rehabilitation programs. Purpose of the Study The general purpose of this research was to study interagency cooperative relationships among related voluntary organizations on a state level in the field of mental retardation and related disabilities. Specifically, this study focused on how related voluntary organizations interacted with one another and examined different sociological and psychological factors that appeared to affect interaction among organizations. An attempt was made to measure and evaluate cooperative interaction activities between related state voluntary organizations and to identify organizational, interorganizational, and interpersonal factors that appeared to affect cooperative interaction between these organizations. The research design for this study was based on a theoretical model of interagency interaction developed recently by a research team of sociologists at Iowa State University which represented the initial efforts by a group of sociologists to build a comprehensive theory of interorganizational relations. Utilizing an exploratory strategy, an attempt was made to use the major dimensions of this interagency model in a limited problem-situational context to discover new ideas and insights regarding interagency cooperation. This study represents the first attempt to relate this theoretical model of interagency interaction to the study of voluntary organizations which are involved in rehabilitation planning for the handicapped. Definition of Terms These terms are presented in their order of use in this study . Organizations.——A generic term used to include groups as agencies, associations and societies. Voluntary Organizations.——Organizations composed of both lay and professional persons who are voluntarily organized, and supported primarily by voluntary contributions from the public 0 rather than from governmental tax—supported sources or endowment. Public Organizations.-—Government agencies supported by tax funds. Cooperative Interaction.—-Joint striving of two units with one another in pursuit of the same goal or value. In contrast, competition and opposition are viewed as the struggle of units against each other for a goal or value. Young (19U9) interorganizational or Interagency.--The relationship between two or more organizations and agencies. Rehabilitation.--Comprehensive planning and pro- gramming of services directed toward as complete restoration of the handicapped person to his society norms as possible. Coordination.--Joint planning and programming of organizational services to maximize effectiveness and minimize duplication, overlap, and omission of organizational services. Exploratory Study.--Exploratory studies represent the preliminary stage in conducting research and is an attempt to discover new ideas and insights about a problem. Exploratory Hypothesis.—-A preliminary statement of an assumed relationship between variables to be used for the purposes of formulating more precise research problems and developing more rigorous testable hypotheses. Exchange Theory.~-Cooperative interaction between organizations based on an exchange of resources such as funds, staffs, and program services which occurs because of perceived benefits accruing to both organizations. Levine and White (1961). Value Theory.——Cooperative interaction between organizations based on certain shared values. Uillman (1969). Interaction Score.-—A measure of the different types of formal activities which occur between ' organizations in this study during a given period of time. Organizational Resources.--The possession of tangible resources and the capacity, skills and time to organize them. Interorganizational Consensus.-—The agreement between two organizations regarding their respective roles and functions. Domain Agreement.~—The agreement between two organizations regarding the claims that an organization stakes out for itself in terms of (1) disease or conditions covered, (2) population served, and (3) services rendered. Levine and White (1961). Organizational Control Structure.—-The formal organizational structural arrangement for con— trolling agency action. In this study of voluntary organizations, the group major source of financial support will be viewed as the organizational control structure. Klonglan (1969). Interorganizational Dependence.--The perceived dependence or need by organizations to cooperate together to achieve their organizational goals. Dillman (1969). Formal Interpersonal Contact.*-Contact between organizational personnel participating in activities where they officially represented their organizational membership. Informal Interpersonal Contact.——Contact between organizational personnel participating in activities where they do not officially represent their organizational membership. Overview Cooperative interaction among voluntary health organizations is the central focus of this paper. These voluntary nonprofit health organizations provide many of the rehabilitation services for handicapped persons. lecause of the commonality of problems faced by handi— capped persons and their needs for long-term services, these numerous voluntary organizations must cooperate together if the handicapped person is to be totally habilitated. This study is an attempt to better define and understand this area of interagency cooperation among voluntary organizations and will use as its theoretical basis a sociological model of interorganizational relations. A section on definitions of terms relevant to this study was presented in the beginning of this paper. In the next chapter, the pertinent literature in the areas of special education, rehabilitation, and sociology will be reviewed and a theoretical model of interorganizational relations presented. CHAIHWH? II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The examination of interagency cooperation among voluntary organizations serving different categories of handicapped persons has been a topic of study in both the fields of special education and rehabilitation and in sociology. In the field of special education and rehabilitation, there has been the recognition that the needs of handicapped persons were complex and interrelated, and required the services of numerous organizations over an extended period of many years. Sociology has approached the examination of interagency cooperation from the standpoint of organizational theory and the study of social and psychological processes in interorganizational interaction. The first section of this chapter will review special education and rehabilitation literature in the field of interagency cooperation. The second section of this chapter will examine related sociological research. its concluding section of this chapter will review a recent sociological model of interorganizational relations which is the theoretical framework for this study. 10 ll Special Education and Rehabilitation Literature There are numerous articles and references which have stressed the need for cooperation among voluntary organizations providing services for handicapped persons. Among the earliest references was an article by Dr. Frederick Green in 1915 entitled "Cooperation and Coordination of Voluntary Public Health Organizations" in which he enumerated his observations regarding the lack of cooperation among voluntary health organizations. In l9US, Gunn and Platt completed a broad study of voluntary health organizations which again stressed the need for cooperation among voluntary organizations. This need for increased cooperation among voluntary organizations was also pointed out in articlesby Robert Hamlin (1961) and Michael Bigab (1962). Kurrin (1962), Hurder (1963), Dybwad (1964) and Obermann (196“) began a more analytical approach to the resolution of this problem of lack of cooperation among voluntary organizations. Kurrin (1962) focused his attention primarily on the problem of organizational structure and policies of the agencies as possible reasons for lack of interagency cooperation. He stated: There is a critical need to identify the restrictions in agency procedure that prevent or interfere with interagency planning (1962, p. 1““). 12 Murder (1963), as chairman of the Task Force on Coordination — President's Panel on Mental Retardation, believed the prohlem of interagency cooperation could best be solved by more clearly defining the problem and establishing state agencies with the authority to coordinate public agencies. However, the problem of coordinating private voluntary organizations was not resolved. Dybwad (196“) showed increasing insight into the problem of interagency cooperation with the following statement: It is quite surprising, in view of the attention that has been focused on voluntary health organizations, how little consideration has been given to these internal processes, since they of necessity condition the organi- zation's readiness and capacity for cooperative effort (1964, p. 299). Unfortunately, Dybwad failed to elaborate on this point in his text. Obermann (1969) talked of communication difficulties and lack of trust as two of the major problems impeding CQOperation among voluntary organizations, but did not specify how to resolve these particular problems nor how to accomplish the larger objective of cooperation. Meyen (1967) focused his efforts on attempting to more objectively define the problems and needs of the handicapped, the roles of the different agencies, and developing a more effective organizational system to deliver services. The author expressed the assumption that once the problems of the handicapped have been clearly identified, and the organizational roles and l3 patterns of interaction defined, that then voluntary organi- zations would increase their cooperation and interaction. It is the position of this writer that a major factor which should be taken into consideration in the study of interagency cooperation is the analysis of the structure and needs of the participating organizations and their relationships to one another. Most of this research has been done in the field of sociology under the topics of formal organization and interorganizational relations. This research will be reviewed the next section. Sociological Research Booth and Babchuk (1969) defined voluntary organizations as formal groups embodying continuity, rules governing eligibility, goals, and prescribed rights and obligations of members. Bahchuk in an earlier study with Gordon (1959), attempted to incorporate previous fragmented research on voluntary associations and proposed a theory of voluntary associations in the form of a model utilizing the three criteria of accesibility of membership, status defining capacity of the association and the function 0? the organization for the participant defined as instrumental or expressive. The authors also suggested a rational for the comparative study of organizations 1” based on the primary function of the group designated as (l) instrumental where the primary objective was societal change, (2) expressive where the primary purpose was satisfying needs and interests of their membership, and (3) instrumental and expressive which combined objectives of one and two. Reproduced in figure one is Babchuk and Gordon's mode 1 . This model offered some interesting possibilities for future research in the field of interorganizational relations. In the study of cooperation among voluntary health organizations, we would have expected the highest degree of cooperation among organizations which were instrumental, concerned about the same problems and have similar organizational objectives, and whose members have comparable socioeconomic status. Many of these factors have been incorporated into Klonglan's (1969) theoretical model of interorganizational relations. Sociological research in the field of inter— organizational relations was quite limited as Etzioni has pointed out in surveys conducted in 1960 and 1969. In his later study, Etzioni stated: Modern society is a society of organizations, but the obvious question of how these organizations in— teract has not been systematically explored. We know a great deal about interaction among persons, something about interaction among groups, but sur- prisingly little about interaction among organiza- tions (1969, p. 110). .mCOfipmHoomm< mmmpzzao> mo xwoaodhe em moahme< osmez H.pmz cmoapo8¢ ecu Hmmopqu mmeo so mhmpcmsmm mesoom zom zpmfioom mooE>coc< aonwOHOHoom coawmq mflcm3wx m>fimmopdxm mofiaozooa< cmofipoe< smeahms< aampcmesmumcH w afioczoo msmpo> :oEos czao cmoHLoE< i seam azax 3m cmOHHosmom HmpsmESmecH mo mzmmmq cmflcmzcufiq mcsow mapmpm mspmpm mSpmpm mspmpm M oflsmsmpamz ou mpflfifioflmmooom sou qwgmpermw on spaaflpammmooa ems: » 16 Both Klonglan (1969) and Dillman (1969) have recently completed surveys of the sociological literature in the field of interorganizational relations and reported that, at the present time, there was no comprehensive. theory to integrate this research. Dillman, in his review of the research in the area of interorganizational relations stated that: Researchers have approached their studies from one or the other of two meaningful perspectives. Individual studies have tended either to study (1) the effects of environmental relations on the operations or organizations, or (2) to determine what factors affect organization's involvements in relations with organizations of their respective environments (1969, p. 9). Dillman (1969) stated this second approach which specified interorganizational relations as a dependent variable and attempted to explain its occurrence was more comprehensive than the first approach, since both sociological and psychological factors were included in the study. A sociological study closely related to the field of rehabilitation planning was done by Lefton and Hosengren (1966) who considered agencies' lateral and longitudinal interests in clients in order to explain the extent of cooperation with one another. Lateral interests concern the extent of an agency's interest in the multiple aspects of clients' lives; for example, the nwdical, psychological, social, educational, and vocational problems that are faced by the client. Longitudinal 17 interest concerns the degree of interest over time, such as infancy, childhood, adulthood. These researchers hypothesized that formal cooperative relations are more likely to occur if lateral and longitudinal interests of the participating agencies were similar. The major restriction of this study was that it dealt with only a limited part of the problem and that no effort was made to consider other factors that could have affected the interorganizational relationships. Litwak and Hylton (1962) have attempted to explain a special type of indirect interaction among agencies which was the emergence of coordinating agencies. They hypothesized that coordinating agencies would develop and continue in existence if formal organizations were partly interdependent, agencies were aware of this interdependence, and it could be defined in standardized units of action. As a modification of this hypothesis, they suggested that when the agency system was small, with only a few agencies, then direct interaction was likely to substitute for coordinating agencies. The limitation of this study was that agency participation in interagency councils represented only one type of cooperation between organizations. A study productive at both the theoretical and empirical levels was done by Aiken and Hage (1968) in which they focused on an organization's resource needs 18 as the rational for deriving five hypotheses about factors related to organizational interdependence. The five organizational characteristics which were related to an organization likelihood to become involved in inter— organizational relations were the organization's complexity, innovation, communication, centralization and formalization. This area of organizational resource needs has been incorporated into Klonglan's (1969) model of inter— organizational relations as one of the major factors that should be taken into consideration in a study of interaction between organizations. The primary limitation of the research studies that have been reviewed in this chapter was that these studies focused only on particular dimensions of the problem of interorganizational relations and did not relate to a broader conceptual framework like Klonglan (1969) has attempted to develop in his model of inter— organizational relations. Theoretical Framework The theoretical model of interorganizational analysis presented in this study was conceptualized by a research team of sociologists in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Iowa State University. The theoretical model was developed under the leadership Of Gerald Klonglan (1969) and the theory was further eranded by Don Dillman (1969). 19 From a sociological viewpoint, Klonglan (1969) stated that the theoretical model as presented in this paper, was related to the general theory of formal organizations and more specifically to the area of inter— organizational relations where two or more organizations attempted to achieve specific goals through joint efforts. To understand the dynamics and motiviation for interorganizational relationships and cooperative inter— action, further sociological research relating to exchange theory and value theory were incorporated into this theoretical model developed by Klonglan (1969) and l)i11ne11 (1969). Exchange theory has been applied to the study of organizations by Levine and White in their work "Exchange as a Conceptual Framework for the Study of Interorgan- izational Relationships" (1961). Organizational exchange in this study will refer to cooperative interaction between organizations based on perceived benefits accruing to both organizations. The resources of an organization such as funds, staff, and program services appear to be important factors in determining how extensively an organization can participate in cooperative interaction with other organizations. Levine and White (1961) also believed that organiza- tional exchange agreements were dependent upon an Or’I,_",a.nization's domain. These sociologists defined the 20 domain of an organization as consisting of the specific goals it wished to pursue and the functions it undertook in order to implement its goal. In operational terms, Levine and White (1961) stated that organizational demain in the health field refers to the claims that an organi- zation stakes out for itself in terms of (1) disease covered, (2) population served, and (3) services rendered. its importance of domain in the framework of Levine and White was that it was specified as one of the major factors that determined whether exchanges between organi- zations would take place. With voluntary organizations, preserving organizational domain becomes an important factor in their soliciting funds from the public for organizational maintenance and growth. Dillman (1969), in his study, stated that value theory was another factor which appeared to affect organizational interaction. The basic premise of value theory was that there exists certain shared values which guide and control human behavior. Values are conceptions of what is desirable and undesirable in social life. The concept of interorganizational cooperation which was the focal point of this study, may be considered a value whose validity and importance may not be shared by different organizations and people associated with the handicapped. Rehabilitation as a philosophy of care and treatment, and rehabilitation planning as a concept 21 for delivery of organizational services for handicapped persons are also values which may be considered desirable or undesirable by organizational participants. Acceptance or rejection of the above values appeared to be an important factor in determining whether cooperative interaction occurs among organizations. The description of this model of interorganizational relations and the different categories of variables affecting interorganizational interaction are reproduced from a report by Klonglan (1969). Exchange theory and value theory have been incor- porated into the descriptive model which is presented and titled Influence Relationships Among Categories of Variables. This model attempts to distinguish between categories of variables on the basis of the way that these variables affect interorganizational interaction. The basic question posed by Klonglan in his model of interorganizational relations was: What were the major variables that appear to determine differences in the type and degree of cooperation interaction between organizations? Klonglan (1969) stated that the major categories of variables were: 1. Interaction Activity Variables. This category of variables represented the kind of cooperative interaction that takes place between organizations. I“) O 22 This kind of cooperative interaction may include a simple exchange or organizational newsletters, the loan of agency resources like equipment and meeting rooms, or sponsoring joint projects together. Preconditional Variables. Preconditional variables were conditions or factors existing prior to any type of cooperative interaction between organizations and independent of the other agency in the interaction activity. Primarily, the preconditional variables were attributes about the organization that might affect its ability to engage in cooperative interaction with another organization. Such variables or attributes might be an agency's funds, size of staff, or programs. Interagency Conditional Variables. These variables reflected the beliefs, attitudes, and evaluations that organizations have regarding other organizations. The interagency conditional variables were divided into two sub-categories: (l) operational characteristics, (2) orientation characteristics. The operational characteristics related to the similarities or differences between the formal structures of the organi- zations. Examples of this relationship might 23 be whether there are similarities or differences in the way the organization is funded - public versus private, or the organization's purpose like health, education and welfare. The second sub-category of variables was called orientation characteristics and referred to the social- psychological view that organizations held toward the other organization in the inter- organizational situation. u. Impact Variables. Impact variables were defined as changes in the structure and/or functions of the agency due in part to the occurrence of interagency actiVities and/or interagency conditional variables. Klonglan (1969), in his research, did not elaborate on this category of variables and has indicated that further research was needed in this area. These variables are presented in figure two. Relation amonggthe variables. The four straight arrows indicated expected direct effects of certain categories of variables upon others as indicated by the directions of the arrows. The curved arrows indicated exDected reciprocating influences of interagency conditional variables and interaction activities upon each other. The arrow labeled "feedback" indicated that the impacts of the interaction activities and interagency conditional .moaomfipm> mo mmfisowopmo wcoE< mdfichOfipmHom mocosamcHnl.m osswfim .mmma spouses .ms shoemm aonOwoom .zMOH0dopcpc< cam szHOfioom no pcmsusmdmo .mufimpo>fico mumpm mon "mon .wwe< :.mooa>smm EmHHonooH< mufi::EEoo use mesmuumm coapomsmch mocem<= ..Hm pm ..m cashew .cmawcoax ”momaom Axosnemmov 21: mmaomasw> meaemfism> f 3232 4| $33.5» pomdsH cofipomamucH HmCOHpHUcoompm \\ moaomfism> Hmcofisneeoo -\ mocmmmsmucH 25 variables may serve as preconditional variables for future interaction activities. These variables were viewed from the dimension of time: past, present, and future. Preconditional variables were previous factors in a situation which could affect interagency cooperation. Interagency conditional variables were present beliefs, attitudes, and opinions that organizations hold regarding other organizations. Impact variables were the anticipated future changes that occur in an organization as a result of the preconditional and interagency conditional variables. Interaction variables represented the cooperative activities that took place among organizations. Summary and Conclusions The special education and rehabilitation research ‘ reviewed in this chapter has focused primarily on the need for cooperation among voluntary organizations rather than specifying how to accomplish this objective. The sociological research which has been done in the area of interorganizational relations was very limited and was composed mostly of studies emphasizing the structural characteristics of organizations. The primary limitation of this sociological research was that these studies focused only on particular dimensions of the problem of interorganizational relations and did not relate to a broader conceptual framework. 26 Klonglan's model of interorganizational relations incorporated exchange theory and value theory as the basis for understanding the rational and motivation for inter- organizational interaction. From this review of literature, it was the opinion of this writer that Klonglan's model of interorganizational relations was the only comprehensive theory presently available for studying cooperative interaction among voluntary organizations. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study was to examine inter- organizational cooperative relationships among four related voluntary organizations on a state level in the field of mental retardation and related disabilities. This study was exploratory in nature and based on a sociological theoretical framework recently concep- tualized by a research team of sociologists at Iowa State University. This research was concerned with studying how related organizations cooperatively interact with one another and examining different sociological and psycho— logical factors that appeared to affect interaction between organizations. This study attempted to evaluate cooperative interaction activities between related state voluntary organizations and to identify organizational, inter- organizational and interpersonal factors that appeared to affect cooperative interaction between and among these or’ganizations. The number of organizations in this study was r’OStricted so that a greater in-depth analysis of the four Voluntary organizations included in this study could be conducted. Therefore, this study may be viewed as 27 a comparative analysis of four case studies. As such, the findings can be treated only as tentative and not goroviding a broad base for generalization. However, the cxancepts developed here should be useful in developing a: theoretical model of interorganizational relations which czan be utilized in future research in rehabilitation pxlanning and programming of services for the handicapped. Sources of Data This exploratory study focused on a limited number (if state voluntary health organizations serving the mentally rwetarded and closely related disabilities. The organi- zzltions in this study were selected using the criterion of ruamogeneity (Klonglan, 1969). The agencies were judged t() be homogenous from the standpoint that it was believed tnuat, because of the similarity of these disabilities, ‘there existed a high likelihood that theSe organizations would engage in cooperative interaction with one another. ‘Pherefore, the first criterion for the selection of organization was: 1. Purpose of the organization. That the primary Purpose of the organization was to gain public attention and support for the needs of persons with mental retardation or related disabilities such as cerebral palsy and mental illness. 29 The purpose of this study was to investigate coopera- tive interaction among voluntary organizations. The next criterion for selection was: 2. The organizational structure. The second criterion for the selection of organizations was their composition of both lay and professional persons and that these organizations were voluntarily organized on a statewide basis and supported primarily by voluntary contributions from the public rather than from government sources or endowments. Since most of these voluntary organizations lacked professional staffs at the area and county operational levels, the decision was made to limit the study of organizational interaction to the state level. Therefore, the third criterion for the selection of organizations was: 3. Organizational level of operation. This study focused on organizations operating at a state level. Using these criteria, the following four state voluntary organizations were included in this study. 1. The Association for Retarded Children (ARC) is a voluntary organization organized for the purpose of influencing the attitudes and opinions of society toward the provision of better resources and services to assist the mentally retarded children and adults. 2. The Association of Mental Health (AMH) is a Voluntary citizens' organization which was founded for 30 the purpose of combating mental illness and advancing mental health. "t 3. The Society for Crippled Children (SCC) is a voluntary organization founded for the purpose of providing direct assistance and services to physically handicapped persons and informing the public of the needs of these handicapped persons. A. The United Cerebral Palsy Association (UCP) is a private, non-profit agency founded for the purpose of meeting the needs of cerebral palsied patients and families. Research Design Case study information regarding a description of each of the state voluntary organizations was collected as a part of the research design. This description of the voluntary organizations included a statement of each organization's purpose, when founded, major programs, executive staff personnel, and special organizational and staff problems encountered during 1968. The other part of the research design included a more structured study of three major categories of inter- organizational variables patterned after Klonglan's theo- retical model of interorganizational relations. Different Organizational characteristics were studied to see if these factors were related to increased or decreased 31 cooperative interaction among organizations in this study. These organizational characteristics which were the independent variables and called general exploratory hypotheses, were grouped into three major categories or sets: (A) organizational resources, (B) interorgani- zational consensus, and (C) previous interpersonal relation— ships between organizations. These three categories had a total of twelve different dimensions or measures which were titled specific exploratory hypotheses and were studied to predict the dependent variable called inter- organizational interaction. This cooperative inter- action between organizations was measured using scores which were computed based on the type of cooperative activities that had taken place among the organizations in this study during 1968. See figure three for the research design showing these variables. Description of Interorganizational Interaction as the Dependent VariabIe Interorganization interaction in this study was the dependent variable and was measured by an interaction score. The interaction score was a measure of the number of the different types of formal interaction activities between the organizations during a given period of time - 1968. Formal interaction activities between organizations was defined as those activities in which the participants were officially representing their organizational member- ship and engaged in transactions involving the affairs of 32 their respective organizations. This interaction score was a single composite score based on the occurrence of twelve areas of formal interaction activities between organizations. These areas of formal interaction activities were: 1. Awareness of the existence of the other organization. 2. Acquaintance with the director of the other organization. 3. Familiarity with the programs of the other organizations. 4. Communication by telephone with the director of the other organization. 5. Communication by letter with the director of the other organization. 6. Communication in person with the director of the other organization. 7. Participation with other organization in interagency councils or programs. 8. Exchange of information, newsletters, reports between organizations. 9. Exchange of personnel, resources, materials, and equipment between organizations. 10. Joint projects between organizations. 11. Joint ownership of facilities, equipment and resources. 12. Formal written agreements regarding organi- zational policies and programs. The rational and the selection of these twelve areas of formal interaction activities to measure inter- Organizational interaction were drawn from the studies by Klonglan (1969) (1970), and a paper by Finley (1969). Set A Organizational Resources 1968 1. Organization Annual Expendi— ture 2. Organization Number of Staff 3. Organization Number of Pro- gram Services Set B Interorganizational Con- sensus Between Two Organ- izations - 1968 A. Domain Agreement 5. Similarity of Organiza— tional Control Structure 6. Perceived Interorganiza— tional Dependence set C Previous Interpersonal Relationships Between Two Organizations Before 1968 7. Previous Formal Contact Between Executive Staff 8. Previous Informal Contact Between Executive Staff 9. Previous Formal Contact Between Executive Board 10. Previous Informal Contact ietween Executive Board 11. Previous Overlapping Board 33 Independent Variables Memberships Between Organ- izations 12. Other Previous Contact Between Personnel of Both Organizations Dependent Variable Overall Interaction Score 1268 Mean of the interaction score with the three other organizations in this study. Comparison with the interaction score with a key public agency. Interaction Score Between Two Organizations - 1968 Mean of the interaction score between the two organizations being studied. Interaction Score Between Two Organizations - 1968 Mean of the interaction score between the two organizations being studied. FiEUFe 3.——Research Design Showing Independent and Dependent Variables 3“ The underlying assumption of the above studies was that interorganizational interaction may be viewed in the perspective of exchange theory or the exchange between organizations of resources like funds, personnel, and equipment. Exchange theory has been applied to the study of organizations by Levine and White. Levine and White defined organizational exchange as any voluntary activity between two organizations which has consequences, actual or anticipated, for the realization of their respective goals or objectives (1961, p. 588). To this notion of organizations exchanging resources, Finley has added the concept of evaluating these organiza- tional resources on the basis of cost or perceived value and also examining the type of communication that has taken place between organizations. Therefore, the higher the cost or perceived value of the resources that were exchanged between organizations and the more formalized and structured the communications, then the higher was rated the degree of involvement between these organizations. Finley, in his report (1969), developed a conceptual model of interorganizational relationships which included five categories of increasing interorganizational involvement, and which was based on the criteria of interorganizational exchange of resources and types of communications. The preliminary model of interorgani— zational interaction that Finley developed is shown below: Degree of Involvement Possible Indicators Very Low intensity Informal information exchange only including conversation, unscheduled written memos, and information through mass media. Low intensity Intermittent, periodic information exchange through patterned channels such as interorganization councils. Middle intensity Patterned information exchange; mutual awareness of activities; little "hard-goods" exchange such as facilities and paraphernalia. High intensity Patterned recurrent exchange of "hard—goods", technical informa- tion, personnel exchange of a give- and—take basis. Very high intensity Formalized pattern of exchange, formal liaison position (5), money exchange. Since Finley lacked empirical evidence of the validity of the above model, he made the decision to consult five authorities and three practitioners who were involved with interorganizational relations. These authorities and practitioners placed interorganizational activities into! three major categories of (1) low level of interorgani- zational relations, (2) middle level of interorganization :relations, and (3) high level of interorganization relations. These levels represented the degree of involve— ment of one organization with another organization in the areas of exchange of resources and types of communication. Finley's research findings have been incorporated into the interaction score which was used in this thesis. This interaction score was a single composite score 36 based on the occurrence of twelve areas of formal inter- action activities between organizations arranged on a continuum beginning with interaction activities of a low level of involvement and progressing to middle and higher levels of interorganizational involvement. The twelve areas of formal interaction activities have been placed into one of three levels of inter- organizational involvement: Level of Interaction Areas of Interorganization Interaction Low level 1. Awareness of the existence of the other organization. 2. Acquaintance with the director of the other organization. 3. Familiarity with the programs of the other organizations. A. Communication by telephone with the director of the other organization. 5. Communication by letter with the director of the other organization. 6. Communication in person with the director of the other organization. 7. Participation with other organizations in interagency councils or programs. 8. Exchange of information, newsletters, reports between organizations. Middle level 9. Exchange of personnel, resources, materials, and equipment between organi- zations. 37 10. Joint projects between organizations. High level 11. Joint ownership of faci- lities, equipment, and resources. 12. Formal written agreements regarding organizational policies and programs. Areas 1, 2 and 3 represented the most basic measure of interaction between organizations, and this group of items was called acquaintance. Klonglan (1969) has stated that the relevance of this group of items under acquain- tance to interorganizational interaction was that cooperation of almost any type between organizations was dependent upon the awareness that the other organization existed, its purpose and programs, and knowledge of the name of a key person with that organization to contact. This key person was usually the director of the organization. Areas A, 5 and 6 described the beginning of contact between key representatives of the organizations. In terms of exchange of organizational resources: communi— cation by telephone represented the least expenditure; communication by letter represented a higher expenditure and a permanent form of contact; and a personal meeting between directors involved the highest expenditure of resources and usually signified the initiation of a higher level of interaction between these organizations. 38 Areas 7 and 8 represented the beginning of formal contact between organizations. Finley (1969) stated that participation with other organizations in interagency councils or programs usually represented a minimal investment of resources by one organization member with another. Finley (1969) stated that area 8, exchange of information, newsletters, and reports between organizations, represented a fairly strong relationship between organi— zations since some of this information would be considered private and viewed as valuable to the security and growth of the organization preparing the material. Areas 9 and 10 illustrated a middle level of inter- action between organization as greater amounts of organi— zational resources were exchanged. Finley (1969) hypothesized that by exchanging and loaning personnel and other resources, two organizations were in a position to optimize limited resources and to benefit from speciali- zation which would not be possible without this close cooperation and interaction. Area 10, joint projects between organizations represented extensive involvement between organizations. Finley stated: . . by consenting to conduct a joint activity, two organizations agreed to share costs and benefits derived from the activity. Since a good deal of interorganizational coordination was required, it was felt that programs and projects JOintly conducted by two organizations indicated a middle level of interorganization involvement (1969, p. 16). 39 Areas 11 and 12 constituted a higher level of inter- organizational involvement between two organizations. Joint ownership of facilities, equipment, and other resources by two organizations usually denoted not only a large investment of resources by one organization with another, but the establishment of a long-term relation- ship. Area 12, formal written agreements regarding organizational policies and programs, suggested that the relationship between two organizations was highly involved and intimate, since the two organizations were in the position to permanently control one another's investment of designated organization resources. Based on the theory and rational proposed by Finley (1969) of looking at interaction activities in terms of tflie amount of resources exchanged and the type of ccnnmunication between organizations; low level interaction act:ivities, areas 1-8 received an assigned scoring weight of‘ one point for the occurrence; middle level interaction act;ivities, areas 9-10 received an assigned scoring weight Of"three points for the occurrence; and high level integraction activities, areas 11-12 received a weight of fiVEP points for the occurrence. The assignment of the scorting weights to the twelve areas of formal interaction actixzities was based on the ordinal scale of measurement znui aiztempted to indicate the comparative value of Orgaruizational resources that has been exchanged between 01’??an Z ations . MD This total interaction score can range from 0 to 28 points and was the primary factor used to measure the extent of interaction between organizations in this study. Klonglan (1969) has stated that the major reason a total interaction score, rather than individual interaction activities, was preferred was based on an assumption about the nature of interaction activities that any individual interaction activity was not independent of other inter- action activities. Three types of interaction scores were computed in this study. The first type of interaction score was an overall interaction score computed by averaging a voluntary organization's interaction scores with the other three voluntary organizations in this study. This mean interaction score provided the basis for estimating ‘the extent that a voluntary organization interacted with cather related voluntary organizations. The overall iJiteraction score was the dependent variable used to ervaluate the first three specific hypotheses under the cuategory of independent variables entitled Set A, Chnganizational Resources. As a standard of comparison for evaluating the overall ianeraction score for each of the four voluntary organi- zaticnis in this study, a second type of interaction score was (nomputed for each of the private voluntary organi- zaticnis in this study with a common relevant state public U1 agency. This agency, the State Department of Social Welfare, provides financial assistance, and important medical, social and legal services to many of the handicapped persons served by the four voluntary organi- zations in this study. Therefore, a comparison of the interaction between the voluntary organizations in this study with a major public agency provided the basis for looking at the interaction patterns between public and voluntary organizations as well as better understanding the interaction patterns of the voluntary organizations with one another. The third type of interaction score used in this study was restricted to evaluating interaction between pairs of two voluntary organizations. The interaction scores for two organizations were averaged and this score was used as the dependent variable to evaluate the three snaecific hypotheses under Set B, Interorganizational Ccnisensus Between Two Organizations, and Set C, Previous lhiterpersonal Relationships Between Two Organizations. Description of Organizational Resources as the First Major Category of Independent ‘Variables, Statement of General and Specific Exploratogy Hypotheses, and Procedures Klonglan (1969) has defined organizational resources as thetxneans used to obtain the goals of the organization. Resourmnes included the possession of tangible material 1:2 resources and the capacity, skills and time needed to organize them. One dimension of the possession of resources was considered in this study, and this was the size or amount of resources that an organization possessed. The three measures of the size of an organization's resources were (1) amount of annual budget, (2) number of organizational staff, and (3) number of program services offered by the organization. These organizational resource measures were hypothe- sized to be relevant in explaining the ability of an organization to engage in interaction activities with other organizations. On the basis of the above considerations, the first general exploratory hypothesis was stated as follows: General Exploratory Hypothesis #1. An organi- zation's interaction with other voluntary organi- zations will be related to the size of its resources. One indicator of an agency’s resources was the amount of annual budget for the organization during the most recent year of its operation - 1968. Dillman (1969) has stated that this indicator has the advantage of using a common unit (dollars) to place a value on the many different kinds of resources under the control of the agency. It took into account many different aspects of an agency's resource base. This information regarding the agency's total expenditure for 1968 was obtained from a questionnaire “3 (Appendix B) used in an interview with the organizational director. The question was phrased: Approximately how much was your organization's total budget for the 1968 fiScal year? The first specific exploratory hypothesis was stated as follows: Specific Exploratogy Hypothesis #1. An organi- zation's interaction score with other voluntary organizations will be related to the size of that organization's budget for that year. The second indicator of the size of an organization's resources took into account only a limited aspect of an agency's resources. This indicator was the number of staff members. Dillman (1969) stated that this aspect of the resource base was thought to be of particular importance since the occurrence of interorganizational interaction was considered to be more likely if there were numerous staff persons. This was because there appeared a greater likelihood that staff reassignments could be made to facilitate interaction without seriously affecting the implementation of other programs. Data on the number of staff members were obtained from a questionnaire (Appendix B) used in an interview with the executive director of the organization. The question was phrased: What was the total number of full-time staff and clerical personnel employed by your state organization in 1968? A“ The second specific exploratory hypothesis was: Specific Exploratory Hypothesis #2. An organization's interaction score with other voluntary organizations will be related to that organization's number of staff for that year. A third indicator of organizational resources was the number of different kinds of client services offered. Dillman (1969) stated that offering a service was defined as the staff of the agency either performing the service or paying others to perform the service. Because of the limitations of funds and staff among voluntary organi- zations, often these organizations seek to cooperate with other related organizations in providing services for their clients. It is believed that organizations offering the most program services would have higher interaction scores than those organizations offering fewer jprogram services. Each agency director was asked in an :interview of the following question with regard to nine ciifferent kinds of client services which his organization might offer. Did your organization provide the following categories of services in 1968? 1. Direct financial assistance. 2. Direct economic aid (like food, clothing, shelter). 3. Medical services (diagnosis and treatment). A. Psychological services (diagnosis and treatment). 5. Counselling and advisement regarding specific problems like marital and family. 6. Educational services. ‘ 7. Vocational rehabilitation services (testing, counselling, training and placement). .3 Mil. 8. h’ecreatinn. 0. Other general categories of service. The third specific exploratory hypothesis was: Specific Exploratory Hypothesis #3. An organization's interaction score with other voluntary organizations will be related to that organization's number of program services for that year. Description of Interorganizatignal Consensus as the Second Major Category of Independent vagif 'ables, Statement of Genera14apg_Specific Exploratory Hypotheses,'and‘Procedures This set of variables focused on areas of consensus between organizations that appeared to affect the probability of one organization becoming involved in interaction activities with another organization. Consensus was defined for the purposes of this study as the agreement between two organizations regarding their respective roles and functions. The three indicators of interorganizational consensus that were included in truis study were (1) domain agreement between organi- zations, (2) similarity of organizational control structures, and (3) perceived interorganizational dependence. On the basis of the above considerations, the second general exploratory hypothesis was stated as follows: General Exploratory Hypothesis #2. An organization's interaction with another voluntary Organization will be related to their interorgani- zational consensus. 1“) One indicator or interorganization consensus was domain agreement. Levine and White (1961) stressed the importance of domain agreement as a major factor that determined whether interaction and exchange between organizations would take place. Levine and White defined domain as: The domain of an organization consists of the specific goals it wishes to pursue and the functions it undertakes in order to implement its goals. In operational terms, organization domain in the health field refers to the claims that an organi- zation stakes out for itself in terms of (1) disease covered, (2) population served, and (3) services rendered. (1961, p. 597). The information regarding domain agreement between organizations was obtained in an interview with the director of the organization and the question was phrased: In regard to your organization and (name of other organization) do you believe there is any conflict or duplication concerning the following areas: A. The disease or problem covered NO YES 1 point 0 points If yes, please explain. B. The population or people being served. NO YES 1 point 0 points If yes, please explain. C. The types of services being provided NO = 1 point YES = 0 points If yes, please explain. U7 figuringfilmhflth organizations interviewed and scores :tlmlmt‘ii . “-_._-—— no conflict and duplication low conflict and duplication medium conflict and duplication high conflict and duplication 'i—b points 3-“ points 1—2 points 0 points Specific Exploration Hypothesis #4. An organization's score with another voluntary organization will be related to their domain agreement score. The second indicator of interorganizational consensus was similarity of organizational control structures. Klonglan (1969) has defined agency control structure as the formal organizational structural arrangement for controlling agency action. One aspect of the agency control structure in this study of voluntary organizations was their major source of financial support. It was expected that voluntary organizations with the same major source of financial support like the United Fund would be more likely to become involved in interaction activities with one another than would independent fund raising organizations that competed against one another for charitable public contributions. Other reasons proposed for this increased interaction between United Fund organizations was because of the higher visibility of these organizations to one another, and the general United Fund policy encouraging interorgani- zational cooperation and interaction. U8 The information regarding the organization's major :mnm'e ol' Financial. support was obtained from a question— naire (Appendix H) used in an interview with each organization director. The question was phrased: Please give the major sources of funds for your organization during 1968. Please indicate approximately what per cent of your total budget came from these sources in 1968. Scoring - interviewing both organization and comparing major source of funding. 0 -— both organizations have dissimilar major source of funds 1 -- both organizations have the same major source of funds The specific exploratory hypothesis was stated as follows: Specific Exploratory Hypothesis #fi. An organi- zation's interaction score with another voluntary organization will be related to the similarity of their organizational control structure. The third indicator of interorganizational consensus \Nas perceived interorganizational dependence. Dillman (1969) has defined perceived interorganizational dependence as the perception by the key personnel of one organization that the support of another organization was needed in order to achieve their organizational goals. This definition was similar to a definition by Litwak (1962) in which he defined organizational interdependence as a situation in which two or more organizations must take each other into account in order to best achieve their individual goals. H9 The information regarding perceived interorgani- zational dependence was obtained in interviews with the directors of the organizations, and the question was [)ii [’El.;1€)(i : how important were the following organizations in helping your agency to achieve its goals and programs in 1968? 1. No importance = 0 points 2. Slight importance = 1 point 3. Considerable importance = 2 points A. Much importance = 3 points Scoring - both organizations interviewed and scores :sunnnecl. 5-6 points = high mutual interdependence between organizations. 3—H points = medium degree of interdependence between organizations. l-2 points = low degree of interdependence between organizations. 0 points = no interdependence between organi- zations. On the basis of the above information, the sixth :uneeiiic exploratory hypothesis was stated as follows: Specific Exploratory Hypotpesis #6. An organi- zation's interaction score with another organization will be related to their perception of inter- organizational dependence. Description of Previous Interpersonal Relationships Between Opganizations as the Third Majpr Category of Independent Variables, Statement of General and Specific Exploratory Hypothesesi and Procedures. This set of variables focused on the personnel from the \Mbluntary organizations being studied and attempted to examirua how previous formal and informal contacts between ‘1‘) 0 organizational personnel affected current interorgani- zational interaction. Formal contact was defined as persons participating in activities where they officially represented their organizational membership. Informal contact was defined as persons participating in activities where they did not offically represent their organizational membership. Informal contact might have included joint participation in such activities as service clubs and organizations, professional membership organizations, special interest groups and religious, political and recreational programs. It was believed that if persons from related organizations had previous formal or informal contact, that these persons would have been more likely to enter into current formal relationships involving their organizations. On the basis of the above considerations, the third general exploratory hypothesis was stated as follows: General Exploratopy Hypothesis #3. An organi- zation's present interaction with another organi- zation will be related to the previous contact between their personnel. One type of interpersonal interorganizational relationship was the previous formal contact between their executuve staff. Formal contact was defined as persons participating in activities where they officially represented their organizational membership. Executive staff was defined as the director and assiStant director (if iiie «iistairizzrticnl. This information regarding previous formal contacts between executive staff was obtained in an interview with the director and assistant director of the organization and the question was phrased: As a member of the executive staff of , did you formally meet as a representative of your organization with any of the executive staff (director, assistant director) of before 1968 to discuss the affairs of your respective organizations? NO YES The seventh specific exploratory hypothesis was stated as follows: Specific Exploratory Hypothesis #7. An organization's present interaction score with another organization will be related to the occurrence of previous formal contact between their executive staffs. The second type of interpersonal interorganizational relationship was the previous informal contact between their executive staff. Executive staff was defined as the director and assistant director of the organization. Informal contact was defined as persons participating in activities where they did not officially represent their organizational membership. Informal contact might have included joint participation in such activities as service clubs and organizations, professional membership OPHanizations, special interest groups, and religious, political, and recreational programs. L ‘1 . F." "“9 \J'i PJ This information regarding previous informal contact between organizational s aff was obtained in an interview with the director and assistant director of the organi- zation and the question was phrased: Did you participate with the executive staff of (name of organization) in any kind of informal activities before 1968 like service clubs and organizations professional membership organi— zations, special interest groups, or religious, political or recreational programs? NO YES Specific Exploratory Hypothesis #8. An organization's present interaction score with another organization will be related to the occurrence of previous informal contact between their executive staffs. The third type of interpersonal interorganizational relationship was previous formal contact between the executive board members of the two voluntary organizations. Executive board members was defined as the chairman, vice- chairman, secretary and treasurer of the board. Formal contact was defined as participation in activities where the persons were representing their organizational membership. This information regarding formal contact between executive board members was obtained in a mailed question- naire (Appendix B) to each of the 1968 board members Of the voluntrry organizations in this study. The question was phrased: As a member of the executive board of , did you formally meet with any of the executive hoard members (chairman, vice-chairman, secretary and treasurer) of before 1968 to discuss the affairs of your respective organizations? NO YES The ninth specific exploratory hypothesis was stated as follows: Specific Egploratory Hypothesis #9. An organization's present interaction score with another organization will be related to the occurrence of preVious formal contact between their executive boards. The fourth type of interpersonal interorganizational relationship was previous informal contact between the executive board members of the two voluntary organizations. Executive board members was defined as the chairman, vice- chairman, secretary and treasurer of the board. Informal contact was defined as persons participating in activities where they did not officially represent their organi- zational membership. Informal contact might have included joint participation in such activities as service clubs an and organizations, professional membership organizations, special interest groups, and religious, political, and recreational programs. This information regarding informal contact between executive board members was obtained in a mailed question- naire (Appendix B) to each of the 1968 members of the executive board of the voluntary organizations in this study. The question was phrased: Did you participate with any members of the executive board of (name of organization) in any kind of informal activities before 1968 like service clubs and organizations, profes- sional membership organizations, Special interest groups or religious, political, or recreational prmnjranus? NO YES Specific Exploratory Hypothesis #10. An organization's interaction score with another organization will be related to the occurrence of previous informal contact between their executive boards. The fifth type of interpersonal interorganizational relationship was previous overlapping board membership between two organizations. Finley (1969) hypothesized that if a person had served as a board member of two related organizations, and if the occasion for inter- organizational cooperation had arisen, then this person would have been more likely to have encouraged interaction between the organization with which he was presently affiliated as a current board member with the organization that he had been formerly associated as a board member. This information regarding previous overlapping board membership was obtained in a mailed questionnaire (Appendix B) to each of the 1968 executive board members Of the organizations in this study. The question was phrased: Have you served as a board member of (name of other organization) before 1968? NO YES \Jl §pecific Exploratory Hypothesis #11. An organization‘s present interaction score with another organization will be related to the occurrence of previous overlapping board member- ship between these two organizations. The sixth type of interpersonal interorganizational relationship was other previous contact between organiza- tional representatives. Organizational representatives were defined as including staff, board members, volunteers and any other persons who could have represented the organization. This area was exploratory and attempted to discover if there were any other previous type of contact or communication between organizational representatives which had not been covered in previous questions and which could have affected interorganizational cooperation. It was believed that if persons from related organizations had previous contacts, these persons would have been more likely to influence their organizations to have become involved in interorganizational COOperation. This information regarding other previous contacts between organizational representatives was obtained from interviews with the director and assistant director of each organization and in a mailed questionnaire (Appendix B) to each of the 1968 executive board members of the organizations in this study. The question was phrased: Have you had any other type of contact or communication with the staff, board, or other representatives of before 1968? NO YES Specific Exploratory Hyppthesis #12. An organization's interaction score with another organization will be related to the occurrence of other previous contact between their organi- zational representatives. instrumentation and Collection of Data The questionnaires used in this study (Appendix B) were adapted from instrumentation first used by Klonglan (1969) in his study "Agency Interaction Patterns and Community Alchoholism Services". This instrumentation was later revised by Klonglan for use in the Iowa Health Organization Study (1970). The reliability and validity of the instrumentation had not been established because of the formulative or exploratory nature of the research being conducted. Refinement of the questionnaires focused primarily upon clarification of the wording and terminology used in the questions. The personnel selected for interviewing from each (Df the voluntary organizations were the executive staff conmosed of the director and assistant director, and executive board consisting of the chairman, vice-chairman, secretary and treasurer. The executive director of the organization, because of his administrative position and tenure with the organization, appeared to be in the best -Position to evaluate interorganizational interaction, interorganizational consensus, organizational resources, and provide case study information regarding the organi- zation. The executive staff and executive board members, 57 because of their decision—making powers, appeared to be the most significant organizational personnel to interview regarding previous interpersonal interaction between organizations. The methods for collecting data were by interviews with the executive director and assistant director of each organization conducted by the writer. Initially, the collection of data from executive board members was to he conducted by mailed questionnaire. A preliminary sampling of board members by mailed questionnaire proved unsatisfactory because of lack of response, and the procedure was changed. The revised procedure included the writer calling the executive board members by telephone and reading the questionnaire to them and writing their responses on the questionnaires. Personal and telephones interviews were conducted for all the personnel from the voluntary organizations in this study. All IN Psons contacted were cooperative in providing information fkir’ tin} Wifiiter°. The interview schedule took place over the period of one month. Legitimation letters (Appendix A) were sent to each organization during the first week. Phone contact was stablished during the second week, and interviews were conducted during the thiPd and fourth weeks, UH frx)C(wlur%:s .for’ Aruilyxyis (3f lfiruiirujs This study was exploratory in design with the major emphasis on the discovery of new ideas and insights rather than emphasizing the more precise methods of empirical hypothesis testing. The research design for this thesis combined the case study approach of a limited number of organizations with a more structured study of four major categories of interorganizational variables patterned after Klonglan's theoretical model of interorganizational rm>lz1tixun::. The data were analyzed as follows: 1. Each voluntary organization was studied in depth using the case study method. This case study included a statement of each organization's purpose, when founded, major programs, executive staff personnel, and special organizational and staff problems encountered by that organization in 1968. 2. The first three specific exploratory hypotheses which composed the first major category of independent variables entitled organizational resources were tested using the rank—difference method of correlation comparing two sets of ranks. 3. The last nine specific exploratory hypotheses which composed the second and third major categories of independent variables entitled interorganizational consensus and previous interorganizational interpersonal 50 contacts, were evaluated by visual inspection of data presented in tables to see if possible relationships existed between the independent and dependent variables. H. The three categories of general exploratory hypotheses were evaluated by examining the outcomes of their sub-hypotheses called specific exploratory hypotheses. The findings are presented in the next chapter. CHAPQTHK.IV FINDINGS The findings in this chapter are primarily in the form of a descriptive case study as defined by Riley (1963). The guidelines proposed by Riley for conducting a descriptive case study, include selecting a small number of cases to study and collecting a wide variety of data about different properties of each organization through the interview—questionnaire method, and reporting the data primarily in a descriptive fashion. This chapter is composed of four sections. The first section consists of a comprehensive description of each of the four voluntary organizations in this study. This description includes a statement of each organization's purpose, when founded, major porgrams, executive staff personnel, and special organizational and staff problems encountered during 1968. The second section includes a discussion of interor- Hanjzational interaction findings. The third section of this chapter includes a restate- ment, of each specific exploratory hypothesis followed by the [aresentation and analysis of the data collected 60 61 tlnr«uu h inlx‘rvi(‘w;: arnl q1u~sti(in1uli1m3s. line znialgysi:; 01‘ each of the general exploratory hypotheses is followed by an evaluation of the feasibility of further studying the hypothesis. The final section of this chapter is a summary of the findings. Description of the Voluntary Organizations The four voluntary organizations in this study were primarily concerned with the problem of mental retardation and such closely related disabilities such as mental illness and cerebral palsy. Because of a mutual concern for these closely related problems, these organizations appeared likely to interact with one antoher. These four organizations were located in the same general geogra- phical area, the capital city in a midwestern state. This city was centrally located within the state and had a population of approximately 300,000 people. Each of these organizations was a state chapter of a national voluntary health organization and claimed to have affiliate organizations at a county of local level. The four voluntary organizations in this study were tima State Association for Retarded Children, the State Association for Mental Health, the State Society for (”filbpled Children, and the State Cerebral Palsy Association. Each of the organizations were described using the following format: (1) organization's purpose, (2) when founded, (3) major programs, (A) description of organi— zation's executive staff personnel, and (5) special organizational and staff problems encountered in 1968. State Association for Retarded Children The State Association for Retarded Children (ARC) is a voluntary, non-profit association organized in 1953 for the purpose of influencing the attitudes and opinions of society toward the provision of better resources and services to assist the mentally retarded children and adults. The association's major programs include motivating and supporting state agencies in their meeting the needs of the mentally retarded. The state association gives guidance and coordination to the programs of local county chapters. It stimulates research and studies in the field of mental retardation. It functions in creating awareness of the needs of the retarded through a public education program. The association's executive staff personnel consists Of an executive director and assistant director. The exencutive director is a white male, age 61, who has been ”witii the association since 1959. He received his lukhergraduate degree in psychology and a master degree 63 in public health education. His previous related pro- fessional experience included seventeen years as a public health educator with the county health department. He sees his role as executive director as primarily administrative and working within the organizational structure of the state association. The assistant director of this organization is a white female, age U9, who has been with the state association since 1962. She is the mother of a retarded child and has had approximately three years of college primarily in the area of speech education. She had no prior professional experience in the field of organizations. Her role is that of program implementation and coordination, field consultant to county chapters, and legislative consultation. Regarding special organizational and staff problems encountered in 1968, the director mentioned the difficulty of getting persons other than parents of retarded children to participate on the different state boards and committees of this association. The small state staff of four persons made it difficult to serve their eighty-six local county units or chapters distributed over a large UGOflxephical region. Statue Association for Mental Health The State Association for Mental Health (AMH) is a woluntary citizens' organization which was founded in 6M 19H3 for the purpose of combating mental illness and advancing mental health. This is accomplished through comprehensive programs in basic research, public and professional education, and services. The state association compiles statistics on the state's mental health needs and resources, participates in legislative action at the state level to promote laws that will provide adequate mental health facilities and programs, improvement of state mental hospitals and special school programs; serves as liaison with state government agencies and professional and civic organizations to increase cooperation and support of action on mental health problems, and assists in the development and guidance of county chapters on mental health. The association's executive staff personnel consists of an executive director and assistant director. The executive director is a white male, age 29, who has been with the organization since July, 1967. He has an undergraduate degree in the field of education, and his previous related professional experience was as a field consultant with another state association for mental health. He perceives his job role as administrative and FHNDgram planning. The assistant director is a white male, age 24, who joined the state association in the early part of 1968. His academic background includes three years of 65 college in political science, and his related professional experience includes three years as a fund raiser with a local county chapter of a health organization. The assistant director's primary job responsibilities included fund raising and serving as a field consultant to local affiliates in the state. The special organizational and staff problems in 1968 encountered by this organization included board conflict which the director believed was due to the domination of the board by professionals in the field of mental health serving as board members. The staff problems included high personnel turnover and staff- hoard conflict over personnel policies. State Easter Seal Society for Crippled Children The Society for Crippled Children (SCC) is a voluntary organization founded in 1927 for the purpose of providing direct assistance and services to physically handicapped persons and informing the public of the needs of these handicapped persons. Major programs include direct services to handi- capped persons through recreational programs, speech and physical therapy, provision of prosthetic devices, and educational programs for handicapped individuals, parents, professionals, and the public. 66 The society's executive staff personnel consisted of an executive director and assistant director. The executive director was a white male, age “8, who had been with the organization since 1959. He had an undergraduate degree in political science and a masters degree in administration. His previous related professional experience included ten years as the director of a Y.M.C.A. and three years in direct mail advertising and fund raising. He saw his job responsibility as primarily administrative and supervising board, committee, and public relations activities. The assistant director was a white male, age 29, who joined this organization in 1966. His education included two years of college, and he had no previous related professional experience. His job responsibility included fund raising, supervision of field consultants, and public relations. The director stated that there were no special organizational and staff problems in 1968. State United Cerebral Palsy Association The State United Cerebral Palsy Association (UCP) is a private, non—profit agency founded in 1952 for the purpose of meeting the needs of cerebral palsied patients and families. Major programs include education, guidance, referral and consultation services for parents in professional 67 and service areas related to cerebral palsy, public and professional education, and legislative action on bills affecting the welfare of cerebral palsied persons and families. The state association's executive staff personnel consisted of a part—time executive director. This executive director was a white male, age 35, who had been with the organization since 1966. He had an under- graduate degree in social work. His previous related professional experience was two years' experience as a director of a county cerebral palsy association in another state. His job responsibility included being the administrator and fund raiser for both the state and county cerebral palsy associations. The director stated that shortage of staff was the primary problem that his organization encountered in 1968, and this negatively affected every phase of the organization's operations. Interorganizational Interaction Findings Interorganizational interaction between voluntary (untanizations was the primary focus of this study. As a.ru3rm or basis of comparison for evaluating each voluntary organization's mean interaction score with the other voluntary organizations in this study, an additional interaction score was computed with a related public 68 agency that worked closely with all of these voluntary organizations. This public agency was the State Department of Social Welfare, which provides financial, medical, social, and legal services to many of the clients served by these four voluntary organizations. Table 1 reports these interaction scores. TABLE l.-—Comparison of interaction scores for each voluntary organization with a public agency and with other voluntary organizations. Voluntir Interaction Mean Interaction Score Ortini;aZion Score With With Other Voluntary L‘ “ Public Agency Organizations SCC 1A 10.3 UCP 10 10.3 ARC 15 6.7 BA 35.0 _X- = 1305 -X— = 8'75 The interaction scores of voluntary organizations with other voluntary organizations (Y - 8.75) appeared to be significantly lower than the interaction scores of voluntary organizations with a common related public agency (X = 13.5). This data establishes the assumption that all the voluntary organizations in this study participate exten- sively in interorganizational relations. (H) Restatement of Exploratory Hypotheses with Presentation of Findings This section of the chapter included a restatement of each general exploratory hypothesis followed by its subhypotheses entitled specific exploratory hypotheses. The findings are presented in tabular form for each specific hypothesis, and an evaluation made of whether the specific hypothesis was supported or not supported. Following the presentation and evaluation of the sub- hypothesis in each category, a statement will be made regarding the feasibility of further studying the general exploratory hypothesis based on the findings of its sub—hypotheses. Organizational Resources The first general exploratory hypothesis was stated as follows: First General Exploratory Hypothesis. An organization's interaction with other voluntary organizations will be related to the size of its resources. This first general exploratory hypothesis was evaluated by looking at three specific exploratory hypotheses for each organization relating to the three measures of an organization's resources used in this study: (1) amount of the annual budget, (2) number of 7U organizational staff, and (3) number of program services offered by the organization. The first specific exploratory hypothesis was stated an: follows: Specific Exploratory Hypothesis #1. An organization's interaction score with other voluntary organizations will be related to the size of that organization's budget for that year. The findings are shown in Table 2. TABLE 2.—~Comparison between size of organizational budget and interaction scores. Mean Interaction . Size of Voluntarv . . Score With Other , . fl. Organizational ( . vi, r '_ _ .- )ILinlédtlon Budget Volgggaigngrgan Budget Rank Score Rank 800 $A22,000 1 10.3 1 ARC 100,000 2 6.7 u AMH 55,000 3 8.0 3 UCP U6,000 A 10.0 2 Using the rank-difference method of correlation, the correlation coefficient was .2 and interpretation of this figure using the Fisher's Table of t (Smith, 1962) indicated low correlation and no relationship between the size of budget and the mean interaction score. Therefore, the hypothesis that an organization's interaction 71 score with other voluntary organizations will be related to the size of that organization's budget for that year was not supported. The second specific exploratory hypothesis was stated as follows: Specific Exploratory Hypothesis #2. An organization's interaction score with other voluntary organizations will be related to that organization's number of staff for that year. The findings are shown in Table 3. TABLE 3.—-Comparison between number of organizational staff and interaction score. Mean Interaction Score With Other Voluntary Organ- Number of V01U0tary Organizational Organization Staff izations Number Rank Score Rank 800 22 1 10.3 1 ARC 7 2 6.7 A AMH A 3 8.0 3 UCP 2 A 10.0 2 Using the rank-difference method of correlation, the correlation coefficient was .2 and interpretation of this figure using the Fisher's Table of t (Smith, 1962) indicated low correlation and no relationship between the number of staff of an organization and its mean interaction score. Therefore, the hypothesis that an 72 organization's interaction score with other voluntary organizations will be related to that organization's number of staff for that year was not supported. The third specific exploratory hypothesis was stated as follows: Specific Exploratory Hypothesis #3. An E“: organization's interaction score with other voluntary organizations will be related to the number of program services offered by that organization for that year. The findings are shown in Table A. TABLE A.»~Comparison between the number of services offered by an organization and its interaction scores. Mean Interaction Voluntary Number of Score With Other Organization Program Services Voluntary Organ- izations Number Rank Score Rank 800 8 1 10.3 1 ARC 7 2 6.7 A UCP 5 3 10.0 2 AMH 3 A 8.0 3 Using the rank—difference method of correlation, the correlation coefficient was .4 and the interpretation of this figure, using the Fisher's Table of t (Smith, 1962) indicated low correlation and no relationship between the number of program services offered by an organization and its mean interaction score. Therefore, 73, the hypothesis that an organization's interaction score with other voluntary organizations will be related to the number of program services offered by that organization for that year was not supported. Since the three specific exploratory measuring different dimensions of organizational resources (1) budget, ti (2) staff, and (3) program services, showed no relation- ship to the interaction score, the first general explo— ratory hypothesis stating that an organization's inter- g' action with other voluntary organizations will be related to the size of its resources, did not appear to be a feasible area for future study. Interorganizational consensus The second general exploratory hypothesis was stated as follows: Second General Exploratory Hypothesis. An organization's interaction with another voluntary organization will be related to their inter- organizational consensus. This second general exploratory hypothesis was evaluated by looking at three specific exploratory hypotheses which focused on different areas of consensus or agreement between organizations. These areas of consensus between organizations were (1) domain agreement between organizations, (2) similarity of organizational control structures, and (3) perceived interorganizational dependence. 7“ The fourth specific exploratory hypothesis was stated as follows: Specific Exploratory Hypothesis #U. An organization's interaction score with another voluntary organization will be related to their degree of domain agreement. The findings are shown in Table 5. TABLE 5.-—Comparison between two organizations regarding their degree of domain agreement and their mean interaction score. Organi— Letter Pair- ' Degree of Mean Inter— zation Identi- ings of Domain action Score Name fication Organi- Agreement Between Paired zations Organizations ABC A A-B HIGH 6 AMH B B—C HIGH 7. 800 0 0—D MEDIUM 15. UCP D D—A HIGH 8.5 C-A HIGH 9.5 B—D HIGH 6.5 Five of the six pairs of voluntary organizations had a high degree of domain agreement. Only one pair of organizations (C-D) had medium domain agreement where these organizations percieved that there was some conflict and duplication of services offered by their respective organizations. This pair of organizations (C-D) had the highest interaction score which would have suggested that when there was less agreement between organizations 75 regaxding the problem area covered, population served, and services provided, that there would be more coopera- tive interaction. However, since the independent variable, degree of domain agreement, failed to discriminate between paired organizations with high and low interaction scores, 1 the fourth specific exploratory hypothesis that an organization's interaction score with another voluntary organization will be related to their degree of domain ' agreement, could not be supported. The fifth specific exploratory hypothesis was stated as follows: Specific Exploratory Hypothesis #5. An organization's interaction score with another organization will be related to the similarity of their organizational control structure. The findings are shown in Table 6. TABLE 6.——Comparison between two organizations regarding their major source of funding and mean interaction score. Organi— Compa- Mean zation Letter Funding Pairing rison of Paired In- Name Funding teraction Score ARC A U. Fund A-B Same 6. AMH B U Fund B-C Different 7. SCC C Other C-D Different 15. UCP D U. Fund D—A Same 8.5 C-A Different 9.5 B-D Same 6.5 76 The three pairs of o|";",:1nizations with the same source of funding had a comhined X interaction score of 7. The three pairs of organizations with different sources of funding had a combined x interaction score of 10.5. These data suggested that organizations with different sources of funding would have a higher interaction score than organizations with similar sources of funding. The fifth specific exploratory hypothesis that an organi- zation's interaction score with another organization will be related to the similarity of their organizational control structure, was not supported. The sixth specific exploratory hypothesis was stated as follows: Specific Exploratory Hypothesis #6. An organization's interaction score with another organization will be related to their perception of interorganizational dependence. The findings are shown in Table 7. TABLE 7.——Comparison between two organizations regarding their perception of interorganizational dependence and their mean interaction score. Letter Pair— Inter- Mean Interaction Organ— Identi- ing of organi- Score Between ization fica— Organi— zational Paired Name tion zations Dependence Organizations ARC A A—B Low 6. ANN B B—C Low 7. 800 c C—D Low , 15. ”CF D D—A Low 8.5 C—A Low 9.5 B-D None 6.5 77 Five of the six pairs of voluntary organizations in this study indicated a low dependence or need for other organizations in this study regarding achieving their organizational goals. One pair of organizations indicated no need or interorganizational dependence. There appeared to he no relationship between this "none" interorgani- zation dependence and the mean interaction scores between the organizations. Since the independent variable, perceived inter- organizational dependence, failed to discriminate between paired organizations with high and low interaction scores, the sixth specific exploratory hypothesis that an organization's interaction score with another voluntary organization will be related to their perception of interorganizational dependence, could not be supported. Since the three specific hypotheses measuring different areas of interorganizational consensus (1) domain, (2) control - source of funding, and (3) interorganizational dependence, showed no relationship to the interaction score, the second general exploratory hypothesis stating that an organization's interaction with another voluntary organization will be related to their interorganizational consensus, did not appear to be a feasible area for future research. 78 Previous Interorganizational Personnel Contact The third general exploratory hypothesis was stated as follows: Third General Exploratory Hyppthesis. An organization's present interaction with another voluntary organization will be related to the previous contact between their personnel. The third general exploratory hypothesis was evaluated by looking at six specific exploratory hypotheses which focused on formal and informal contacts between various types of personnel from the different voluntary organi- zations in this study. These personnel included executive staff members, executive board members, and other organi- zational personnel who had participated in interorgani- zational interaction. The seventh specific exploratory hypothesis was stated as follows: Specific Exploratory Hypothesis #7. An organization's present interaction score with another voluntary organization will be related to the occurrence of previous formal contact between their executive staffs. This hypothesis focused on examining the relation— ship between the occurrence of previous formal contact (before 1968) between the executive staffs of pairs of two voluntary organizations and comparing this previous contact with their organizations' mean interaction score in 1968. These data are presented in Table 8. 79 TABLE 8.—-Compsrison between paired organizations regarding the occurrence of previous formal contact between executive staffs and their organizations' present mean interaction score. Organi- Letter Pairings Occurrence Mean Interaction zation Identi- of Organ- of Pre- ' Score Between Name fica- izations vious for- Paired tion mal Staff Organizations Contact ii ARC A A-B Yes 6. ‘ AMH B B-C No 7. SCC C C-D Yes 15. UCP D D-A Yes 8.5 A-C Yes 9.5 _g B-D Yes 6.5 I Five of the six pairs of voluntary organizations in this study indicated that there had been the occurrence of previous formal contacts between their executive Staffs. One pair of organizations (B-C) indicated that there had not been any previous formal contact between their execu— tive staffs. There appeared to be no relationship between this non-occurrence of previous formal executive staff contact and the mean interaction score between these organizations (B—C). Since the independent variable, previous formal con- tact between executive staffs, failed to discriminate between paired organizations with high and low interaction scores, the seventh exploratory hypothesis that an organi— zation's present interaction score with another voluntary organization will be related to the occurrence of previous formal contact between their executive staffs, could not be supported. {stattxl hetwee (befor two vo contac ii} 196 TABLE regard staff 80 Th( eighth specific exploratory hypothesis was as {killowsz Specific Exploratory Hypothesis #8. An organization's present interaction score with another voluntary organization will be related to the occurrence of previous informal contact between their executive staffs. This hypothesis focused on examining the relationship n the occurrence of previous informal contact e 1968) between the executive staffs of pairs of luntary organizations and comparing this previous t with their organizations' mean interaction score 8. These data are presented in Table 9. 9.—-Comparison between paired organizations ing the occurrences of previous informal executive contact and their organizations' present mean interaction score. ‘ Organi— Letter Pair Occurrence Mean Interaction zation Identi- ing of of Pre- Score Between Name fica— Organi- vious For- Paired tion zations mal Staff Organizations Contact ARC A A—B Yes 6. AMH B B-C Yes 7 SCC C C—D Yes 15. UCP D D—A Yes 8.5 A—C Yes 9.5 B-D Yes 6.5 81 All of the six pairs of voluntary organizations in this study indicated that previous informal contact had occurred between their executive staffs. Since this independent variable, previous informal contact between executive staffs, failed to discriminate between paired organizations with high and low interaction scores, the PE eighth specific exploratory hypothesis that an organi- zation's present interaction score with another voluntary organization will be related to the occurrence of previous ' y informal contact between their executive staffs could not be supported. The ninth specific exploratory hypothesis was stated as follows: Specific Exploratory Hypothesis #9. An organization's present interaction score with another voluntary organization will be related to the occurrence of previous formal contact between their executive boards. This hypothesis focused on examining the relation- ship between the occurrence of previous formal contact (before 1968) between the executive boards of pairs of two voluntary organizations and comparing this previous contact with their organizations' mean interaction score in 1968. These data are presented in Table 10. 82 TABLE lO.——Comparison between paired organizations regarding the occurrence of previous formal contact between executive boards and their organizations' present mean interaction score. . H. Organi— Letter Pair- Occurrence Mean Interaction zation Identi— ings of of Pre- Score Between Name fica— Organi- vious For- Paired tion zations mal Board Organizations Contact ARC A A-B Yes 6. AMH B B-C No 7. SCC C C—D Yes 15. UCP D D—A No 8.5 A—C No 9.5 B—D No 6.5 Two of the six pairs of voluntary organizations in this study indicated that there had been the occurrence of previous formal contact between their executive boards. These two pairs of organizations had the highest (Y = 15) and lowest (Y = 6.) interaction scores. Four of the six pairs of voluntary organizations indicated that there had been no previous formal contact between their executive boards. No discernable relationship between variables appeared to emerge. Since the independent variable, previous formal contact between executive boards, failed to discriminate between paired organizations with high and low interaction scores, the ninth specific exploratory hypothesis that an organization's present interaction score with another 83 voluntary organization will be related to the occurrence of previous formal contact between their executive boards, was not supported. The tenth specific exploratory hypothesis was stated as follows: Specific Exploratory Hypothesis #10. An organization's present interaction score with another voluntary organization will be related to the occurrence of previous informal contact between their executive boards. This hypothesis focused on examining the relation- ship between the occurrence of previous informal contact (before 1968) between the executive boards of pairs of two voluntary organizations and comparing this previous contact with their organizations' mean interaction score in 1968. These data are presented in Table 11. TABLE ll.—-Comparison between paired organizations regarding the occurrence of previous informal contact between executive boards and their organizations' present mean interaction score. Organi— Letter Pair- Occurrence Mean Interaction zation Identi- ings of of Pre- Score Between Name fica- Organi- vious Infor- Paired tion zations mal Board Organizations Contact ABC A A-B No 6. AMH B B—C Yes 7. SCC C C-D Yes 15. UCP b D—A No 8.5 ' A—C Yes 9-5 B—D No 6.5 8“ Three of the six pairs of voluntary organizations in this study indicated that previous informal contact had occurred between their executive boards. These pairs of organizations had a combined mean interaction score of Y = 10.5. The remaining three pairs of organizations indicated that no previous informal contact had occurred between their executive boards. These organizations with no informal board contact had a combined mean interaction score of Y = 7. There appeared to be a relationship between the occurrence of previous informal contact between executive board members and higher interorgani- zational interaction scores. The independent variable, previous informal contact between executive boards, appeared to discriminate between paired organizations with high and low interaction scores. Therefore, the tenth specific exploratory hypothesis that an organization's present interaction score with another voluntary organization will be related to the occurrence of previous informal contact between their executive boards, was supported. The eleventh specific exploratory hypothesis was stated as follows: Specific Exploratory Hypothesis #11. An organization's present interaction score with another voluntary organization will be related to the occurrence of previous overlapping board membership between these two organizations. This hypothesis focused on examining the present interaction between two voluntary organizations if these or'ganizations had executive board members who had served with both organizations. It was believed that two voluntary organizations linked by common board members would have been more likely to have a higher interaction score. These data are presented in Table 12. TABLE 12.--Comparison between paired organizations regard- ing the occurrence of previous overlapping board member- ship and these organizations' present mean interaction score. Occurrence Organi— Letter Pair- of Pre- Mean Interaction zation Identi— ings of vious Over- Score Between Name fica- Organi- lapping Paired tion zations Board Mem- Organizations bership ARC A A—B No 6. ANN B B—C No 7. SCC C C-D No 15. UCP D D-A No 8.5 A—C No 9.5 B—D No 6.5 All of the six pairs of voluntary organizations in this study indicated that no previous overlapping of board membership had occurred between their organizations. Since this independent variable, previous overlapping board membership between organizations, failed to discrim- inate between paired organizations with high and low interaction scores, the eleventh specific exploratory hypothesis that an organization's present interaction 86 score with another voluntary organization will be related to the occurrence of previous overlapping board member- ship between these two organizations, could not be supported. The twelfth specific exploratory hypothesis was stated as follows: Specific Exploratory Hypothesis #12. An organization's present interaction score with another voluntary organization will be related to the occurrence of previous contact between their organizational representatives other than those contacts between their executive staff and executive board personnel. This area of study was exploratory and attempted to discover if there were any other previous type of contact between organizational representatives other than between executive staff and executive board personnel which could have resulted in interorganizational cooperation. It was believed that other personnel from related organizations could have influenced their organi— zations to become involved in interorganizational cooperation. These data are presented in Table 13. 87 TABLE l3.--Comparison between paired organizations regard- ing the occurrence of previous contact other than executive staff and executive board contact and their organizations' mean interaction score. Occurrence Letter Pair- Mean Interaction 22%i2i- Identi- ings of ofoiizyious Score Between Name fica- Organi- Personnel Paired tion zations Contact Organizations ARC A A-B Yes 6. AMH B B—C Yes 7. SCC C C-D Yes 15. UCP D D-A Yes 8.5 A-C Yes 9.5 B-D Yes 6.5 All of the six pairs of voluntary organizations in this study indicated that there had been previous contacts between organizational personnel other than executive staff and executive board members. Since this independent variable, previous contact between organizational repre- sentatives other than between executive staff and execu— tive board, failed to discriminate between paired organiza- tions with high and low interaction scores, the twelfth specific exploratory hypothesis that an organization's present interaction score with another voluntary organiza- tion will be related to the occurrence of previous contact between their organizational representatives other than those contacts between their executive staffs and executive board personnel, could not be supported. In evaluating the third general eXploratory hypothesis that an organization's present interaction 88 with another voluntary organization will be related to the previous contact between their personnel, five of the six specific exploratory hypotheses (l) formal contact ~ staff, (2) informal contact - staff, (3) formal contact « board, (A) overlapping board membership, and (5) other personnel contact, were not supported. Only the tenth specific exploratory hypothesis, informal board contact, was supported by the data. Therefore, the third general exploratory hypothesis did not appear to be a feasible area for future research. 89 Summary TABLE 1U.-—Tabular summary of findings for 3 general and 12 specific exploratory hypotheses. -- - General Hypotheses Specific Hypotheses Evaluation of Hypothesis Organization Resources 1. Budget 2. Staff Size 3. Number of Programs Interorganization Consensus A. Domain Agree- ment 5. Control - Source of Funds 6. Interdepend- ence of Or- ganizations Previous Contacts Between Organizations Formal - Staff Informal - Staff Formal - Board Informal - Board Overlapping Board Member— ship ~ 12. Other Personnel Contact i—‘i—' i—onooo\1 Not feasible for future study Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported Not feasible for future study Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported Not feasible for future study Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported Supported Not Supported Not Supported CHAPTER V SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS W Professionals in the fields of diagnostic medicine, special education and vocational rehabilitation are beginning to realize that the medical etiological differ- ences among handicapped groups are far less significant than the commonality of their needs for particular services. Most communities outside of major metropolitan areas do not have sufficient numbers of a particular category of handicapped persons to support comprehensive medical, psychological, social, educational, vocational, and resi- dential services. Therefore, if such services are to be provided for handicapped persons, there must be Joint planning and cooperation among voluntary organizations representing the different groups. With the major role that voluntary organizations play in providing services for the handicapped, it is evident that a study designed to provide important information regarding better under- standing interagency cooperation among voluntary organi- zations will be useful in more effectively implementing rehabilitation programs. 90 WI The general purpose of this research was to study interagency cooperative relationships among related voluntary organizations on a state level in the field of mental regardation and related disabilities and to examine different sociological and psychological factors that appeared to affect interaction among these organizations. 7 3 The research design for this study was based on_ a theoretical model of interorganizational relations that was recently developed in the Department of Sociology _g at Iowa State University. This model attempted to measure cooperative interaction among organizations and to identify organizational, interorganizational, and social psychological variables that affected cooperative inter- action among organizations. Four voluntary health organizations were selected for intensive study. Both case study information and questionnaire data for evaluation of exploratory hypotheses were collected from the four organizations. Personnel from the organizations interviewed included the executive staff and executive board members. Instrumentation used in this study was adapted from questionnaires used in previous studies done at Iowa State University in this area. Procedures for analysis of findings included case study materials, the use of nonparametric statis- tics, and visual inspection of data. 92 Eleven of the twelve exploratory hypotheses relating interorganization interaction to the general categories of organizational resources, interorganizational consensus, and previous contacts between organizational personnel were not supported. Case study data suggested that professionalism of staff, organizational stability— instability, and relationships between executive staff were significant factors in affecting interorganizational interaction among voluntary organizations. Further exploratory research is needed to build a larger theoretical base for interorganizational relations and to develop more adequate instrumentation to test and make application of this theoretical model of inter— organizational relations. Discussion and Conclusions Integrating case study and questionnaire findings‘ This discussion is an attempt to bring together case study data and hypothesis testing questionnaire data into a more comprehensive description of the role of voluntary health organizations in the field of inter— organizational relations. This study focused on four state voluntary health organizations which were concerned about the problem of mental retardation and closely related disabilities such as mental illness and cerebral palsy. These organizations -&m1J were located within a ten-mile radius of one another in the capital city of a midwestern state. Each of the organizations was a state chapter of a national voluntary health organization and claimed to have affiliate organi- zations at a county or state level. Marked differences between organizations appeared when structural and staff characteristics were examined. The structural characteristics are presented in Table 15 and staff characteristics in Table 16. TABLE l5.—-Structural characteristics of organizations in this study .— . Name of Number of When Size of Size of Organi- Program zation Founded Budget Staff Services SCC 1927 $u22,000 22 8 ARC 1953 100,000 7 7 AMH 19MB 55,000 4 3 UCP 1952 “6,000 2 5 The Society for Crippled Children (SCC) was the oldest of the four state voluntary organizations studied and had been operating in the state for 41 years. The SCC budget of $u22,000 was over four times greater than the next largest organization in the study. The staff size of SCC which number 22 was three times larger than the next largest organization. From the standpoint of ,J' _.4.'i_ _ 914 organizational longevity, size of budget, and number of staff, the SCC dominated the other organizations in this study. To what extent this predominance of SCC affected the interorganizational interactions in this study could not be determined. The staff characteristics of the organizations are presented in Table 16. TABLE l6.——Staff characteristics of organizations in this study. ._...— Name of Number of Director's .- v ! Organi- Executive D*P:Ctor S DégeCtii S Tenure With zation Staff ge uca on Organization SCC 2 U8 Masters Degree 9 years AHC 2 61 Masters Degree 11 years AMH 2 29 Bachelor Degree 1 year UCP 1 35 Bachelor Degree 2 years In examining the staff characteristics of the four organizations, SCC and ABC had executive directors with the oldest age, highest level of education, and longest tenure. These staff characteristics suggested that these two organizations had a higher degree of professionalism and stability than the other two organi- zations. Klonglan (1969) has defined professionalism as the staff bringing a high level of objective understanding and skill to the achievement of agency goals. The greater organizational stability of SCC and ABC was supported by case study data. 95 .‘HIC r'ceq'nirtmi no special organizational and staff problems in 1968. ABC reported no special staff problems and the only organizational problem centered upon the need to recruit more community leaders other than parents of retarded children in their program. AMH cited both #1 organizational and staff problems which included board- staff conflict and high staff personnel turnover. UCP reported shortage of staff which severely restricted all phases of organizational operation. Both AMH and UCP 4 'V mentioned continual problems with fund raising since only half of their financial support came from the United Fund—Community Chest campaigns. in reviewing this organizational case study data and information, it appeared that professionalism and size of staff, and organizational stability-instability were significant factors in affecting the whole area of interorganizational relations in this study. Kurrin (1962) reported that personnel shortage was a major obstacle to interagency cooperation. He observed that: The lack of trained personnel is a critical problem facing the majority of public and voluntary health organizations. It hardly bears repeating that without adequate personnel it is virtually impossible for a staff to consider joint planning activities. (1962, p.1h6). A basic methodological question regarding this study arose during the collection of questionnaire data. Both Finley (1969) and Klonglan (1970) indicated in their 96 studies that the executive director of an organization was the key actor in interorganizational relations and was in the best position to evaluate his organization's interaction activity with other organizations. Therefore, for this study, this writer interviewed only the executive director of each arganization regarding that organization's r interaction activities. These interaction activities with other voluntary organizations were translated into an interaction score which was the key variable being F studied in this research. Case study data obtained by the writer indicated that with the ARC, the assistant director, rather than the executive director, conducted most of the interorganizational activities. Furthermore, the executive director appeared to have a limited knowledge of the scope of his organization's interaction activity. These circumstances should lead to the questioning of the accuracy of the ARCinteraction scores with the other organizations in this study. This role pattern of the assistant director conducting inter- organizational activities was repeated to a lesser extent by the SCC. The case study and questionnaire data suggested that voluntary organizations with larger staffs View interorganizational relations as a specialized function to be carried out primarily by the assistant director rather than the director of the organization. The _4JL 97 director, in such situations, appeared to restrict his role mostly to administrative, intraorganizational functions. In obtaining the data for this study, the writer noted that the SCC and the UCP functioned as both a state and local organization although officially these organiza- tions were listed as operating on a state level. It appeared that organizational interaction at a given Operational level such as the state level, was affected by interorganizational interaction and agreements at other operational levels such as national and local. Dybwad (196“) noted that two national voluntary health associa- tions, the National Association for Mental Health and the National Association for Retarded Children, had prepared a formal document outlining areas of cooperation between these organizations at the national, state, and local levels. To what extent these other levels of organiza- tional interaction affected this study of state voluntary organizations' cOOperation, could not be evaluated adequately with present theory and instrumentation. The importance of the informal relationships between executive staff members from different organizations became apparent after collecting the case study data. The executive directors from SCC and UCP had apparently formed 98 a close teacher—student relationship in which the older director from SCC (age ”8, 9 years‘ experience) was assist- ing the younger, less experienced director (age 35, 2 years' experience) from UCP with professional growth and development. The 800's director was instrumental in assist- ing the director of UCP in locating and securing the latter Job. This assumption was also supported by the question» naire data showing a mean interaction score of 15 between these two organizations which was the highest mean inter- action score of the six pairs of organizational relation— ships studied. The other five pairs of mean interaction scores between the voluntary organizations ranged from 6.0 to 9.5. This strong personal relationship appeared to override all organizational differences. These findings were consistent with the views of Kurrin (1962) regarding the nature of relationships among agencies providing rehabilitation services for handicapped persons. He noted: Informality in arrangement essentially character- izes much of the inter-agency collaborative practice in existence at the present time. Many agreements reached between agencies were established on a personality basis rather than through formal agency structure or through the agencies' plans of service (1962, p. lUY). From these findings, it appeared that informal per— sonal relationships between executive staff personnel of voluntary organizations were more important than organiza- tional characteristics such as purpose, programs, budget, and number of staff in determining interorganizational relations. 99 In an examination of interaction scores in Chapter IV of voluntary organizations with other voluntary organizations (Y = 8.75) and with a related public agency (X= 13.5), it appeared that voluntary organizations devoted their major effort in interorganizational inter— action to establishing relationships with public agencies. fig Kurrin (1962) commented on the changing functions of public and voluntary agencies. He mentioned that: Voluntary agencies were gradually relinquishing , their direct service programs to public agencies. y Responsibility for medical care, including medical restoration service, the operation of diagnostic evaluation and training, have come within the sphere of public agencies (1962, p. 146). Five basic observations regarding interorgani- zational relations were presented in this discussion integrating case study and questionnaire data. These observations were: (1) the view that professionalism and size of staff, and organizational stability-instability of voluntary organizations appeared to be significant factors in affecting interorganizational interaction among voluntary organizations, (2) that voluntary organizations with larger staffs viewed interorganizational relations as a specialized function to be carried out primarily by the assistant director rather than the director of the organization, (3) that organizational interaction at a given operational level such as the state level, was affected by interorganizational interaction and agreements 100 at other operational levels such as national and local, (N) that informal personal relationships between executive staff personnel of voluntary organizations were more important than organizational characteristics such as purpose, programs, budget, and number of staff in determining interorganizational relations, and (5) that voluntary organizations devoted their major efforts in interorganizational interaction to establishing relation- :zini 1):; vv iiuil [1111) J i<3 {1;tczr1(:i (2:: . The methodological problems encountered by the writer in this study of interorganizational relations reflected the limited sociological research available in organiza- tional and interorganizational theory. Further theore- tical rationale is needed to develop more sophisticated instrumentation so that these basic observations presented can be more carefully evaluated. Discussion of findings in relationship to theorygproposed The purpose of this study was to investigate the topic of cooperative interaction among voluntary organi- zations. As the theoretical framework for this study, the writer used Klonglan's theoretical model of inter— organizational relations as discussed in Chapter II. The basic rational underlying Klonglan's theoretical model was the notion of exchange theory or exchanges between organizations. Organizational exchange was defined as cooperative interaction between organizations 101 based on an exchange of resources resulting in perceived benefits to the organizations involved. (Levine and White, 106]). This writer found the concept of organizational exchange of resources a meaningful perspective from which to view this area of interorganizational relations among voluntary organizations. Exchange theory provided a consistent rational for the collection of both case study and questionnaire data. The key variable in Klonglan's model of interorgan- izational relations was the dependent variable entitled organizational interaction. In his 1969 report, Klonglan measured interorganizational interaction with 7 indices using the nominal level of measurement. Following consultation with Klonglan and incorporating later research by Finley (1969), the writer, in this study, expanded the measurement of interorganizational interaction to 12 indices and raised the level of measurement to the ordinal level. Klonglan's three other major categories of variables were: (1) preconditional variables which were factors existing prior to the interaction between organizations, (9) interagency conditional variables that reflected the beliefs, attitudes, and evaluations that organizations have rwxgarding other organizations, and (3) impact Variables representing changes in the structure or functions of the agency due to interagency interaction. In 102 Klonglan's preconditional variables were evaluated in this study by the category of variables entitled organizational resources and measured by such indices as budget, size of staff, and number of programs. The three exploratory hypotheses evaluating preconditional factors were not supported by the findings. Case study data 341‘ utilizing these indices indicated that preconditional factors grouped together under concepts like professionalism and organizational stability-instability could be better predictors of interaction among voluntary organizations than these indices separately. Interagency conditional variables were examined in this study by the general categories of hypotheses called interorganizational consensus and previous contact between organizational personnel. The three specific exploratory hypotheses evaluating interorganizational consensus as a relevant factor in interagency cooperation were not supported by the questionnaire findings. Five of the six specific exploratory hypotheses relating previous contact between organizational personnel to interorgani- zational interaction were also not supported by the questionnaire findings. The case study data strongly supported the hypotheses that formal and informal contacts between executive staff appeared to determine the type of cooperative interaction that took place between voluntary organizations. 103 luunufl, variables MHflcfln studied tkm2<3ffect that interorganizational interaction and upon participating organizations required longitudinal research and were beyond the scope of this study. The case study findings of this study generally supported Klonglan's basic model of interorganizational relations. The questionnaire data used to evaluate the general and specific exploratory hypotheses did not support Klonglan's theoretical model. It was the writer's “Km-v»; 4-177 W“ Y“.J3'.! opinion that until a larger theoretical base for inter- organizational relations has been established, that adequate instrumentation could not be developed to satis— factorily test and evaluate Klonglan's theoretical model of interorganizational relations. Therefore, at the present time, the case study findings appeared to provide the most substantial data and support for evaluating Klonglan's theoretical model of interorganizational relations. Conclusions Klonglan's model of interorganizational relations was viewed by this writer to be a useful theoretical framework for studying interagency cooperation among voluntary organizations. Some of the significant factors that this model presented were: the concept of inter- agency cooperation as the exchange of resources; the operationalization of the concept of interagency 1011 cooperation into clearly defined activities; the placement of the factors affecting interagency COOperation into a time perspective of past, present and future; and the definition of organizational structural variables and social psychological variables as major factors in the study of interorganizational relations. This study has further expanded the concept of inter- agency cooperation and raised the measurement of these activities to an ordinal level. The case study findings ‘4 in this study-revealed that additional organizational structural factors such as professionalism and organiza- tional stability could be significant factors in studying interorganizational interaction. The systematic examina- tion of previous contacts and relationships between key personnel from different organizations, and the evaluation of their effect upon current interorganizational inter- action represented the majorcontribution of this study. Both Klonglan and this writer have experienced considerable difficulty in developing adequate instru- mentation to test and evaluate this model of inter- organizational relations. Further exploratory research is needed to define the three major independent variables in this model and to provide a rationale from which more sophisticated instrumentation could be developed. 105 htwnnnmiwriati()ns {kin [hiturma Hcsexircil This study continued the extensive investigation that is being done at Iowa State and other universities to build a comprehensive theory of interorganizational relations. Klonglan's model of interorganizational relations offered the most promising theoretical perspec- tive for integrating research in this area. This study represented one of the first attempts to take this model of interorganizational relations and to make specific application of this model to a given problem area in rehabilitation and to a particular type of organization like voluntary health organization. Both the theoretical base for conducting this study and the instrumentation need to be further developed. The interaction activity variables are presently the most sophisticated part of the model. Recommendations for future research would include further refinement of this interorganizational interaction score. This refinement would include more precise evaluation of each type of cooperative activity by a weighing of both the frequency of occurrence as well as the content of the activity. Further research is needed to expand and differentiate Klonglan's major variables for predicting interorgani- zational relations. Presently the distinction between preconditional and interagency conditional variables is 106 1nd,:nifficiently clear so that the researcher can move ahead with confidence in using this research design. In studying preconditional variables, further research is needed to examine intraorganizational factors such as staff characteristics and organizational stability to determine their effect upon an organization's ability to become involved in interorganizational interaction. Major research emphasis should be placed upon further identifying and defining additional factors in | the categories of interagency conditional variables. One of the most promising areas for further exploration in interagency conditional variables appears to be the study of social psychological factors such as past and present relationships between organization personnel. Further investigation also needs to be done to identify the organization personnel who are most instrumental in bringing about interorganizational interaction. As a larger and larger theoretical base for the study of interorganizational relations is built, it is obvious that increasingly sophisticated instrumentation and techniques for data analysis are needed to cope with the multiplicity of interrelated sociological and psy— chological factors that constitute this study of inter— organizational relations. BIBLIOGRAPHY 107 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aiken, Michael and Hage, Jerald. 1968. Organizational Interdependence and Intra-organizational Structure. American Sociological Review 33: 912—930. Hegab, Michael J. 1963. The Mentally Retarded Child. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Booth, Alan and Babchuk, Nicholas. 1969. Personal Influence Networks and Voluntary Association Affiliation. iggiological Inquiry 39:179—189. Horg, Walter R. 1967. Educational Research. New York: David McKay Co. Inc. Cooper, w. W. 196A. New Perspectives in Organization Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons,Inc. Dillman, Donald A. 1969. Analysis of Interorganizational ‘Relations. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University oflfi Science and Technology. Dybwad, Gunnar. 196“. Challenges in Mental Retardation. New York and London: Columbia University Press. Etizioni, Amitai. 196“. Modern Organizations. Engle— wood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Ifitizioni, Amitai. 1968. The Active Society. New York, N. Y.: The Free Press. Firudl, Robert H. 1969. PCMR Adopts Eleven Priority Action Areas, Endorses Federal Office of Child Development. Washington, D. C. Finley, James R. 1969. A Study of Alternative Organiza- tional Designs for Comprehensive Regional Develop- ment. Cooperative State Research Service, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. (hoode, idilliam J. 1952. Methods in Social Research. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co. 108 109 Gordon, C. Wayne and Babchuk, Nicholas. 1959. A Typology of Voluntary Organizations. American Sociological Review 2M: 22-30. _1 lreen, Frederick. 1915. Cooperation and Coordination of Voluntary Public Health Organizations. American Journal of Public Health. Gunn, Selskar M. and Philip S. Flatt. 19H5. Voluntary Health Agencies: An Interpretive Study. New York: The Ronald Press Company. . Hamlin, Robert H. 1961. The Role of the Voluntary Agencies in Meeting the Health Needs of Americans. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 337: 101. Hurder, William P. 1963. Report on the Task Force on Coordination. -Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Klonglan, Gerald E. 1969. Agency Interaction Patterns and Community Alcoholism Services. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University. Klonglan, Gerald E. 1970. Iowa Health Organization Study. (Study in progress. Results will be pub- lished in September, 1970.) Kurrin, Oscar. 1962. Inter—Agency Joint Planning and Collaboration, Fact and Fiction, Exceptional Children. Lefton, Mark and Rosengren, William. 1966. Organiza- tions and Clients: Lateral and Longitudinal Dimensions. American Sociological Review 31: 802—810. Levine, Sol and White, Paul E. 1961. Exchange as a Conceptual Framework for the Study of Interorgani- zational Relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly 5: 583—601. Litwak, Eugene and Hylton, Lydia F. 1962. Interorgani- zational Analysis: A Hypothesis on Coordinating Agencies. Administrative Science Quarterly_6: 395—A26. Meyen, Edward. 1967. Planning Community_Services for the Mentally Retarded. Scranton, Pa. International Textbook. 110 Obermann, E. Esco. 196A. Coordinating Services for Handicapped Children. washington, D. C.: The Counéillfor Exceptional Children NBA and the National Rehabilitation Association, Incorporated. Riley, Matilda White. 1963. Sociological Research. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc. Selitiz, Claire. 1962. Research Methods in Social Rele- tions. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Smith, 0. Milton. 1969. A Simplified Guide to Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Suchman, Edward. 1965. Sociology and Rehabilitation. Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association. Sussman, Marvin B. 1965. Sociology and Rehabilitation. Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association. Travers, Robert M. W. 1958. An Introduction to Educa- tional Research. New York: MacMillan Company. Young, Kimball. 19u9. Sociology: a Study of Society and Culture. 2nd ed. New York, N. Y.: American Book Co. APPENDICES 111 APF‘ENDI X A 112 IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY of Science w: chnology .kfl.b¥:tfii AMES. IOWA 50010 Dem/[mom of Sociology A7 An/hropohmy LEGITIMIZATION LETTER 1 am participating with a research team of sociologists at Iowa State University who are presently conducting a study of private agencies and organizations in Iowa. The purpose of this study is to better under- stand how organizations function and how they are organized to serve the people of Iowa. I would like to arrange separate follow-up meetings with you and your assistant director to discuss your organization and how it Operates within the state of Iowa. Specifically I am interested in obtaining additional information on the current structure and services of your organization at the state level. This information will be kept in a confidential manner. Within the next week I will be phoning you to set up a time whean might meet with you, preferably sometime during the following week. The in- terview with you will be approximately 30 minutes at your office. I will also be contacting your executive board members for organizational information. Your assistance and c00peration are most appreciated. If you have any questions, please call me collect (515-294-6480). Sincerely, Benjamin Yep Instructor BY/lah 113 APPENDIX B 111: Organizational Data Questionnaire Name of Organization Ixugaticnl Purpose Programs Source of Funding Organization Structure Personnel Executive Director: Sex Age Tenure Academic Background Professional Experience Job Description 1968 Assistant Director: Sex Age Tenure Academic Background Professional Experience Job Description 1968 §Qecial Organizational and Staff Problems in 1968 115 Organization Name 116 [‘03. TI L ion .'\) 14. 6. interaction Activities With interview Questionnaire Executive Director Was there the following organization in this state in 1968? Answer Points ____No 0 _m_Yes 1 Did you know the name of the director of this organi- zation during 1968? Answer Points No 0 Yes 1 Were you familiar with any of the major programs that this organization conducted during 1968? Answer Points No 0 Yes 1 Were you and the director of involved in any phone conversations during 1968 during which you discussed the affairs of your respective organizations? Answer Points No 0 Yes 1 Were you and the director of engaged in any formal written correspondence during 1968 in which you discussed the affairs of your respective organiza— tions? Answer Points No 0 Yes 1 Did you formally schedule a meeting with the director of this organization at any time during 1968 to discuss the activities of your respective agencies? Answer Points No 0 Yes 1 Was your organization involved in any type of interagency council or programs with during 1968? Answer Points ____No 0 Yes 1 10. 13. 1M . 117 Was , on your organization's mailing list during 1908 to receive any of your newsletters, annual reports or other information releases? Answer Emints No 0 ___ch '1 Was your organization on the mailing list of during 1968 to receive any of their news- letters, annual reports or other information releases from them? Answer Points No 0 Yes 1 Had your organization loaned or provided resources such as meeting rooms, personnel, equipment or funds to . at any time during 1968? Answer Points No 0 Y(’S ‘ ‘ 3 Had loaned, or provided resources such as meeting rooms, personnel, equipment, or funds to your organization at any time during 1968? Answer Points ___ NO 0 __fiYes 3 During 1968, did your organization work Jointly with in planning and implementing any speci- fic programs or activities where there were no other organizations involved? Answer Points No 0 Yes 3 Did your organization and jointly own any facilities, equipment, or resources during 1968? Answer Points No 0 Yes 5 Did your organization have any written agreements with pertaining to personnel commitments, programs, or organizational policies during 1968? Answer Points ___ No 0 Yes 5 Did you have any other type of contact or communica- tion with the staff, board, or other representatives of in 1968? Answer No Yes If yes, please specify. 118 Organization Nnmo I‘(~:1i"1,i (‘fl Interview Questionnaire Executive Director l. Agency Resources—-1968 1. Approximately how much were your state organiza— "' tion's total expenditures for the 1968 fiscal year? 2. What was the total number of full time staff and F clerical personnel employed by your state organi- zation‘in'l968? 3. Did your state organization provide the following categories of service in 1968? __A. direct financial assistance B. direct economic aid--like food, clothing, shelter C. medical services--diagnosis and treatment D. psychological services-—diagnosis and treatment ' __E. counseling services-—advisement and referral F. public and professional educational services G. vocational rehabilitation services-—testing, counseling, training, placement H. recreation 1. other general categories of service--please describe 119 Organization Name Position interview Questionnaire Executive Director ll. Interorganizational Agreement—-1968 1. In regard to your organization and do you believe there was any conflict or dupli- cation of effort between your organizations in the following areas during 1968 regarding A. The disease or problem area covered. r __ No ' __Yes D. The pOpulation or people being served. __ No __Yes The types of services being provided. __ No __Yes Q 2. Please give the major source of funds for your organization during 1968. Please indicate approximately what percent of your total budget came from these sources in 1968. , 3. How important was the following organization in helping your agency to achieve its goals and programs in 1968. no importance slight importance considerable importance much importance 'l.2’ () Organization Name Position interview Questionnaire Executive Director III. fast Interorganizational Interpersonal Relation- ships--Before 1268 1. As a member of the executive staff of did you formally meet as a representative of your organization with any of the executive staff (director, assistant director) of before 1968 to discuss the affairs of your respective organizations? *_ No _ Yes Did you participate with the executive staff (director, assistant director) of in any kind of informal activities before 1968 like service clubs and organizations, professional membership organizations, special interest groups, or religious, political or recreational programs? .'\) __ No Yes 6. Have you had any other type of contact or communi- cation with the staff board, or other representa- tives of before 1968? __ No __ Yes if yes, please describe. 7. Did any of the past contacts with the personnel of before 1968 which are discussed in the above questions result in any type of cooperative activity or programs with this organization in 1968? __ No Yes If yes, please describe. 121 Organization Name lwi:xit;i()r1 Past Interview Questionnaire Assistant Director Interorganizational Interpersonal Relationships-- Before 1988 1. As a member of the executive staff of F did you formally meet as a representative of your - organization with any of the executive staff : (director, assistant director) of : before 1968 to discuss the affairs of your , respective organizations? 3 __ No ' __ Yes ' bid you participate with the executive staff (director, assistant director) of in any kind of informal activities before 1968 like service clubs and organizations, profes- sional membership organizations, special interest groups, or religious, political or recreational programs? No :: Yes Have you had any other type of contact or communi- cation with the staff, board, or other repres— entatives of before 1968? No :: Yes If yes, please describe. Did any of the past contacts with the personnel of before 1968 which are discussed in the above questions result in any type of cooperative activity or programs with this organization in 1968? No T Yes If yes, please describe. —— 122 ihlvurization Name Position Ill. Past Interview Questionnaire Executive Board Interorganizational Interpersonal Relationships-— Before 1968 3. As a member of the executive board of did you formally meet with any of the executive board members (chairman, vice-chairman, secretary, Q treasurer) of before 1968 to discuss { the affairs of your respective organizations? i __ No __ Yes ' Did you participate with any of the executive board members (chairman, vice-chairman, secretary, treasurer) of in any kind of informal activities before 1968*like service clubs and organizations, professional membership organiza- tions, special interest groups or religious, political, or recreational programs? __ No __ Yes Have you served as a board member of before 1968? _ No Yes Have you had any other type of contact or communi— cation with the staff, board, or other representa- tives of before 1968? _ No Yes Did any of the past contacts with the personnel of before 1968 which are discussed in the above questions result in any type of cooperative activity or programs with this organization in 1968? __ NO __ Yes If yes, please describe.