ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS, DEPENDENCY, AND JOINT PROGRAMS: MUTUAL EFFECTS AND CORRELATES IN INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BERNARD JOSEPH OFFERMAN 1976 lljllllllfllflll llllll \llllllllllllll This is to certify that the thesis entitled ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS, DEPENDENCY, AND JOINT PROGRAMS: MUTUAL EFFECTS AND CORRELATES IN INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS presented by BERNARD JOSEPH OFFERMAN has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Social Science r77 013' \Tj’éfiML/fl (@ Major professor Date May 21, 1976 0-7639 ABSTRACT ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS, DEPENDENCY, AND JOINT PROGRAMS: MUTUAL EFFECTS AND CORRELATES IN INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS By Bernard Joseph Offerman Local human service agencies that are both relatively autonomous and specialized find it either difficult or dis- advantageous to initiate or participate in Joint activity with other agencies. They tend to perceive other local delivery systems in their environment as competitors or bargainers for scarce resources, whether those resources are clients, staff professionals, facilities, good will, legal recognition, or access to funding sources. Yet, in- creased demands for the effective delivery of health, wel- fare, counseling, recreational and other human services, coupled with the inefficiencies that accompany dispersed and fragmented decisions and control, make inter-agency cooperation a community imperative. How, then, do individual agencies react to a changing environment that appears to require negotiation, coordina- tion, and possibly coalitions with other agencies? What agency characteristics and inter-agency conditions are associated with the involvement of public and private Bernard Joseph Offerman human service agencies in Joint activity? And, finally, is organizational pursuit of effectiveness compatible with a cooperative mode such as inter-agency Joint program in- volvement? These questions are posed in this research, and interorganizational theory and concepts are applied to survey findings in order to analyze the results and to determine their implications. The hypothesis predicts an association between Organ- izational Dependency and agency involvement in Joint Pro- grams. The component measures of this involvement are the agency's relative frequenqy of Joint Programs, whether or not the agency has initiated Joint Programs, and the rela- tive intensity of the agency's Joint Program activity. Organizational Dependency assumes the form of either Domain or Resource Dependency. Domain Dependency is based on the organization's need for "consensus" support from its task and contextual environments regarding its func- tions and goals; Resource Dependency is based on the organ- ization‘s need for external resources in order to maintain its programs, implement innovations or enlarge its scope of services. These concepts are measured on the basis of agency director perceptions of whether the source of in- fluence for key organizational decisions are external or internal to agency boundaries. Joint Programs are formalized integrations of resources between two or more organizations for the Joint delivery of Bernard Joseph Offerman programs or services. The utility of the Joint Program lies in the fact that it represents a cooperative activity in which resources are combined for program or service accomplishment beyond the capacities of individual organi- zations; yet, agency identity and integrity are maintained. Data were obtained from thirty-five public and private human service agencies in a midwestern city of approximately 200,000 population. The information was gathered from agency directors through a two-part questionnaire, partly self-administered and partly by personal interview. The Yule's Q statistical test was utilized in measuring corre- lations among the variables. It was hypothesized that: Joint Program involvement by human service agencies in the community is associated with agency director perceptions of Organ- izational Dependency. The Hypothesis was sustained. The strength of the association varied depending on whether frequency, initia- tion or intensity were involved. Joint program frequency (Q = 0.54) was more closely associated with Organizational Dependency than were agency initiation (Q = 0.21) or integ- §i£y_of involvement (Q = 0.38). The most salient agency characteristics associated with the hypothesized direction are older status and a relatively high diversity of agency services. The overall agency profile offering the strong- est support to the hypothesis is the elder and larger pri— vate agency with relatively high levels of service diversity Bernard Joseph Offerman and staff professionalism and a treatment mode of work. The Resource Dependency perceived principally by the private agencies tended to be more closely associated with Joint Program involvement than did the Domain Dependency perceived by the public agencies. Thus, in this particu- lar community, private agency need for money and other material resources appears to be more strongly related to interorganizational coalescing than is public agency need for consensus and acceptance of its role by other agencies and the community. Therefore, this case study appears to support the Aldrich (1972) conclusion that a resource dependence rationale accounts for inter-agency cooperation, and that the Joint Programs may be associated with economic competition for agency growth and overall effectiveness. 0n the other hand, public agencies tend to refrain from Joint activity, and the domain consensus that they generate along with Organizational Dependency may serve as a substitute :2; rather than a facilitator 2; Joint Programs. This pattern resembles the formal cooptation that Selznick conceptualized in his Tennessee Valley Authority study (1949). In the community studied, inter-agency cooperation and coalitions appear to be compatible with agency pur- suit of organizational effectiveness. ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS, DEPENDENCY, AND JOINT PROGRAMS: MUTUAL EFFECTS AND CORRELATES IN INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS BY Bernard Joseph Offerman A DISSERTATION submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Social Science 1976 To my Mother, Mary Offerman, who has always lived a life of love and service to her family; and to my sister, Mary Frances Shea, who has always followed that example. 11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Dissertations in process tend to ebb and flow depend- ing on the interest and plain stubbornness of student and committee. I was blessed with a committee that continu- ally offered support and assistance, so there was usually more flow than ebb. I want to express heartfelt appreciation to Professor Thomas Patten, my chairman, whose professional direction and help were always laced with personal concern and sup- port. Professor Philip Marcus, the research director, unfailingly offered direction, encouragement and his unique humor. All three elements were appreciated every step of the way. I also want to thank Professor Michael Moore for his enthusiasm and suggestions arising from a careful reading of drafts, and Professor Jack Wakeley for his concern and final draft suggestions. Finally, I would like to thank Professor Daniel Kruger for five years of professional and personal association; I hope that some of his interests and compassion have rubbed off on me. 111 Early and later stages of dissertation preparation involved the human support and typing assistance of a number of people. I would like to express deep appre- ciation to Lorraine Jakubielski, Sandy Seelig, Mary Englert, Kay Boysen, Coleen Theusch and Enid Bordner. I would like to add a final word of thanks to Stu Klein and the faculty of the Department of Management and Labor, Cleveland State-Univesity, for their con- sideration and support during the past two years. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I - RESEARCH BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l BaCkgrourld O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 1 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . 3 Conceptual and Operational Purpose . . . A Research ObJectives . . . . . . . . . . 8 CHAPTER II - THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 General Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . 13 Part I - Organizational Research . . . . 13 Part II - Interorganizational and Environ- mental Research . . . 17 Part III - Overall Critique of Literature 27 Specific Literature Review . . . . . . . . . 37 Part I - Organizational Effectiveness . . 37 Part II - Domain, Domain Consensus and Domain Dependency . . . . . . 46 Part III - Organizational Dependency . . . 57 Theoretical Linkages and Joint Programs . . . 57 Part I - The Domain Dependency (Con- sensus) Model . . . . . . . . 63 Part II - The Resource Dependency (Innovation) Model . . . . . . 63 The Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 CHAPTER III - METHODOLOGY AND AGENCY CHARACTER- ISTICS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Part I - Methodology . . . . 76 Part II - Demographic and Operational Characteristics . . . . 101 Part III - Agency Characteristics and Organizational Dependency . . 123 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Page CHAPTER IV - ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Part I - Organizational Dependency and Joint Program Frequency . . . 136 Part II - Organizational Dependency and Joint Program Initiation. . . 154 Part III - Organizational Dependency and Joint Program Intensity . . . 164 Part IV - Summary and Overall Interpre- tation . . . . . . . . . . . 172 CHAPTER V - CONCLUSIONS The Original Purpose . . . . . . . . . 184 Theoretical Basis . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Practical Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Theoretical Implications of the Dat . 190 Practical Implications of the Data . . 195 Limitations of the Research . . . . . . 200 Directions for Future Research . . . . 201 BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 205 APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS . . . . . . . 218 APPENDIX B - SURVEY QUESTIONS FOR MEASUREMENT . . 222 ,vi 1.-.") H #3 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 10 LIST OF TABLES Human Service Agencies Involved in Agency Director Survey; Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1974; by Auspices. . . . . . . . . . . . Persons, Groups and Things Representing Possible Sources of Influence for Organ- izational Decisions; Sub-Divided Accord- ing to Whether Decision Control is Prin- cipally Internal or External to Organi- zational Boundaries. . . . . . . . . . Joint Program Intensity Index. Inten- SIEy of Agency COmmitment to Joint Pro- grams; Measured by Seven Component Characteristics and Factors. . . . . . The Relationship Between Public or Pri- vate Agency Status and Relative Size (Two-Way), Expressed in Q Values; by Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Relationship Between Public or Pri- vate Agency Status and Relative Size (Three-Way); by Agency . . . . . . . The Relationship Between Public or Pri- vate Agency Status and Relative Age (TWO'WaY); by Agency 0 o o o o o o The Relationship Between the Relative Age of A encies and Their Relative Size (WO'WayI§; by Agency 0 o o o o o o o o o The Relationship Between Service Diver— sity and Staff Professionalism Among Human Service Agencies; by Agency . . . The Relationship Between Service Diver- sity and Mode of Work Among Human Ser- vice Agencies; by Agency . . . . . . The Relationship Between Staff Profes- sionalism and Mode of Work Among Human Service Agencies; by Agency. . . . . . vii Page 80 87 91 107 108 108 111 117 117 118 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 11 12 13 1A 15 16 17 18 19 20 LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd) Summary of Relationships Among Agency Characteristics; by Agency . . . . . Demographic and Operational Profiles of Human Service Agencies; by Agency . The Relationship Between Public or Private Auspices and Organizational Dependency; by Agency. . . . . . . . . Summary of the Relationships Between Agency Characteristics and Organiza- tional Dependency; by Agency . . . . . Demographic and Operational Profiles of Human Service Agencies; and Their Relative Levels of Organizational De- pendency; by Agency. . . . . . . . . The Relationship Between Organizational Dependency and the Relative Frequency of Joint Programs; by Agency . . . . . Agency Demographic Characteristics and Their Contribution to the First Com- ponent of the Hypothesis -- the Asso- ciation of Organizational Dependency with Joint Program Frequency in Numbers and Percentages; by Agency . . . . . . Agency Operational Characteristics and Their Contribution to the First Com- ponent -- the Association of Organiza- tional Dependency with Joint Program Frequency in Numbers and Percentages; by Agency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Demographic and Operational Character- istics of Agencies Ranked According to Agreement with the First Component of the Hypothesis; in Numbers and Per- centages; by Agency. . . . . . . . . . Agency Demographic Profiles and Their Contribution to the First Component -- The Association of Organizational De- pendency with Joint Program Frequency; in Numbers and Percentages; by Agency viii Page 120 121 12A 130 132 137 139 141 143 1&5 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd) Agency Operational Profiles and Their Contribution to the First Component -- The Association of Organizational De- pendency with Joint Program Frequency; in Numbers and Percentages; by Agency The Relationship Between Organization- al Dependency and the Presence or Ab- sence of Agency Initiation of Joint Programs; by Agency . . . . . . . . . Demographic and Operational Character- istics of Agencies, Ranked According to Agreement with the Second Component of the Hypothesis in Numbers and Per- centages; by Agency . . . . . . . . . . Agency Demographic Profiles and Their Contribution to the Second Component —- The Association of Organizational De- pendency with the Initiation of Joint Programs; in Numbers and Percentages; by Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agency Operational Profiles and Their Contribution to the Second Component -- The Association of Organizational De- pendency with the Initiation of Joint Programs; in Numbers and Percentages; by Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Relationship Between Organization- al Dependency and the Intensity of Joint Programs; by Agency . . . . . . Agency Demographic Profiles and Their Contribution to the Third Component of the Hypothesis -- The Association of Organizational Dependency with the Intensity of Joint Programs; by Agency Agency Operational Profiles and Their Contributions to the Third Component -- The Association of Organizational Dependency with the Intensity of Joint Programs; by Agency . . . . . . . . . . ix Page 1A6 155 156 158 160 166 167 168 LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd) Page Table 29 -- Agency Characteristics and Their Per- Table 30 -- centage Agreement with Three Components of the Hypothesis; Includes All Char- acteristics and Combinations Reflecting a Minimum of 50% Agreement with the First Component; by Agency . . . . . . 173 Agency Profiles and Their Percentage Agreement with All Three Components; Includes All Agency Profiles Reflect- ing a Minimum of 25% Agreement with the First Component; by Agency . . . . 176 CHAPTER 1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Introduction This chapter introduces the dissertation with back- ground information on the nature and dimensions of the research problem. After the basic empirical questions are posed, the conceptual and operational purposes of the dissertation are defined and described. The chapter con- cludes with brief references to key theorists and an out- line of the research scope and obJectives, its value and limitations. Background The effective local delivery of human services, whether under private or public auspices, is assuming more signifi- cance as community needs are increasingly documented and agencies search for appropriate alternatives for reaching and adequately servicing clients. At the same time, com- munity and client awareness and expectations are more visibly apparent and heightened. Recreational, health, welfare, rehabilitation, employment, counseling, and re- lated human services are becoming essential supports to urban living. Increased needs and expectations alike put pressure on the delivery systems of these agencies to become more efficient and effective in the generation and distribution of services. This pressure is often accom- panied by a community concern for better coordinating and coalescing of programs and services, and for the equality and balancing of service delivery in accordance with the extent and gravity of client needs. Federal programs of the 1960's demonstrated anew the need for integrated planning and delivery of services on a community-wide scale. Documented needs invariably out- ran the resources committed. Therefore, priorities had to be determined in terms of needs, clients and geographical areas to be served. The inter-agency cooperation required for setting and observing servicing priorities generated an entirely new set of problems. Moreover, the nature of the client's need often involved multiple services by more than one specialist or agency. For example: The economi- cally depressed person often needs Job-seeking counseling and assistance in addition to food stamps or unemployment insurance; the person suffering from alcoholism often needs family or personal counseling in addition to de-toxication and group therapy; the physically handicapped need rehabil- itation counseling and a sheltered work experience in addi- tion to physical therapy. With the recent advent of revenue sharing and the Fed- eral decategorization of program appropriations, local pub- lic agencies have been granted more authority and discretion over program and service decisions. Private agencies share in the benefits of this new Federal-state-local partnership because public and private monies are often merged at the local level. For example, the Federal government often subsidizes and evaluates programs and services but subcon- tracts their administration and operation to local private or public agencies. Thus, there is increasing overlap in private and public involvement in human service delivery; and public program mandates often include a requirement to enlist the cooperation and operating expertise of the pri- vate sector. The integration of public and private funds, administration, and evaluation, then, have emphasized the need for more interorganizational coordination among com- munity-level agencies. Mutual initiatives toward Joint activity between public and private agencies assume greater importance both for agency survival and growth as well as effective pursuit of organizational obJectives. Statement of the Problem In this context, the dual problem of organizational dispersion and fragmentation among human service agencies and their diverse decision processes creates a consider- able barrier to effective service delivery. Because of their autonomy and increasingly specialized nature, these agencies are often inadequate and inappropriate in meeting the needs of clients requiring prior, concurrent, follow- up or multiple programs or services. Clients are often unaware of the full range of services that may be avail- able to them, and there is little pressure on the agencies to exchange information for the client's benefit. More- over, isolated decision-making by individual agencies with regard to similar and related human needs often creates program and service gaps or duplications in the community. As a result, scarce human and material resources are often inefficiently distributed and utilized. How, then, do individual agencies that have grown in specialization, professional competencies, and autonomy, react to a changing environment that appears to require negotiation, coordination, and possibly coalitions with other agencies? Are these agencies inclined toward compe- tition and conflict or cooperation and Joint activity in their inter-agency relations? What specific agency char- acteristics and conditions are associated with Joint Pro- gram activity? And finally, are interagency cooperation and coalitions compatible with agency pursuit of organi- zational effectiveness? Conceptual and Operational Purpose The dissertation, therefore, is directed toward increased understanding of "why?" and "under what condi- tions?" interorganizational cooperation and Joint activity take place. The unique nature of this research is its positing of an organizational perception of Domain or Resource Dependency in its environment as a motivation and/or cor- relate for inter-agency cooperation. Cooperation is measured in this design by the presence and relative intensity of Joint Programs. Previous studies have ana- lyzed principally the effects of environmental influences on organizational structures and processes. This research design goes a step further and predicts an environmental response. This response -- the Joint Program -- tends to coalesce inter-agency resources, facilitates program or service delivery, helps control environmental uncertainty and conflict, asserts a claim to current and future func- tions and goals, utilizes organizational slack, and ulti- mately, assists the organization in its overall pursuit of "effectiveness." At the same time, there is a minimal loss in the identity and autonomy of the individual organ- izations involved. Organizational Dependency, the proposed correlate of Joint Programs, represents an agency perception that the locus of control for organizational decisions is outside organizational boundaries. This dependency may be due to the agency's conscious sharing of influence with environ- mental elements in order to overcome or deal effectively with perceived domain or resource deficiencies. On the other hand, this external control may be an unplanned phenomenon that intrudes on or accompanies agency efforts to establish and extend domain or resource control. In either event, efficacy or power in key decision areas is perceived to be somewhere in the external environment. This state of dependency on its task and contextual environments evolves further as the organization pursues domain consensus. That is, the domain consensus that is essential for staking out its task and contextual power creates a new dependency for the organization. Thus, there is a well-defined domain of agency functions to main- tain and protect and the agency must continually bargain for continued support from agents and organizations in its transactional and contextual environments. Organizational Dependency is operationalized as external decision control, and it is measured by agency director perceptions of whe- ther the sources of influence for twenty-four key organi- zational decisions are external to the organization. The prediction is made that organizational awareness of this dependency and the domain consensus that accompanies it both induces and makes possible resource exchange and for- malized exchange agreements -- namely, Joint Programs. One might ask, "Decision control for what . . .?", i.e., what are the desired organizational outcomes? ‘Qrgag- izational Effectiveness, defined in the Glossary (Appendix A) and discussed in Chapter II, is a criterion that is both universal and appropriate for organizational deci- sions and interorganizational comparisons. This concept includes the principally internal dimension of_gga1 achieve- mgpt and the principally external dimension of environmental adappation. The former is represented by internal decision rationality surrounding the task structure and the processes of differentiation and integration of functions. The lat- ter refers to organizational decision strategies and tactics in bargaining for more certain and predictable external environments, and the processes of guaranteeing access to scarce and valued resources in the environments. Joint Programs represent a formalized commitment and integration of resources by two or more agencies for the Joint delivery of programs or services. In operational terms, they involve the interorganizational sharing, ex- changing and/or pooling of resources. The agreement may involve money, prestige, staff, supervision, information, volunteers, legal support, spaaa supplies, goodwill or some combination of these elements. Joint Programs enable the organization to exploit symbiotic relationships in its environment for more effective program and service delivery. Program and servicing needs that lie beyond the capacity of individual agencies to fulfill can be carried out through Joint activity with other agencies. Conflict can be kept in check as Joint Program experience leads to more exten- sive reliance on negotiated environments. Internally, organizational slack is utilized and surplus resources are advantageously utiiized or combined with other agency resources for net increases in programs and services deliv- ered. At the same time, human service agencies in general become better informed about each others' competencies, and individually and collectively, they gear program planning to more cooperative and synergistic solutions to service delivery. In the survey instrument, Joint Programs are desig- nated as planned and formal commitments of resources by two or more autonomous human service agencies within the five-year period previous to the survey, and having been in existence for a minimum of six months. Research ObJectives Heydebrand (1973) points out that there are few quan- tiatively-compared or empirically-based research studies in the field of interorganizational relations. For local human service agencies in particular, the vacuum is clear- ly evident. This research is an effort to gather empiri- cal data and to analyze potentially comparable organiza- tional variables both internal and external to the organ- ization. Though essentially a case study, this research also represents an attempt to relate organizational prop- erties and profiles to interorganizational activity in a form that can be replicated and extended by other research- ers. Reid (1964), Thompson (1967), Aiken and Hage (1968) and Marrett (1971) have concluded in their writings that a "theory of coordination" or a more thorough and system- atic understanding of organizational motivations or pro- pensities to coalesce programs and services are needed urgently in the field of interorganizational relations. Aiken and Hage (1968: 929), on the basis of their empir- ical model of Resource Dependency resulting from innova- tion pressures, conclude that "It is scarcity of resources that forces organizations to enter into more cooperative activities with other organizations, thus creating greater integration of the organizations in the community struc- ture." They regarded a realistic model as incomplete if it failed to incorporate both cogperation and conflict in its concept and operation. Reid (1964: 421) saw Joint Programs arising from "shared goals and comple- mentary resources" while Thompson (1967: 26-32) related to resource exchange as a consequence of the agency mar- ket situation for inputs and outputs, organizational domain maintenance and extension, and an organizational strategy in which environmental certainty is sought. In this dissertation, two maJor research obJectives are pursued in order to better understand organizational motivations to coalesce resources in an inter-agency activity. The first obJective is to measure and deter- mine the relationship between organizational Domain or Resource Dependency and the initiation, the presence and the intensity of Joint Programs. The second obJective is to test possible correlations between agency demo- graphic characteristics (auspices; age; size) and oper- ational characteristics (diversity of services; mode of work; level of professionalism) on the one hand and the incidence of Joint Programs on the other. As a result of this two-fold research purpose, a third obJective is accomplished. That is, agency pro- files are developed that reflect the mix of demographic and operational characteristics peculiar to the partic- ular community studied. These profiles and their rela- tionships to JointProgram involvement may serve as use- ful categories and departure points for future case 10 studies and empirical research generally. Uniquely, this research design utilizes the percep- tion of environmental dependency as an organizationally- conscious or -unconscious correlate of Joint Programs. Also uniquely, in its analysis and conclusions, it describes ideal and less than ideal organizational con- ditions that are associated with inter-agency programs and services. Since the case study format dictates the research methodology, research obJectives and conclusions are limited to descriptive statements and analyses. There- fore, inferences and generalizations to other communities or largerppopulations of agencies are not warranted or appropriate. Rather, the use of an individual community of agencies for the scope of the case study may help future researchers concentrate on the total empirical reality of inter-agency relations in a city. Moreover, the use of characteristics and organization-level profiles common to many types of organizations makes future case studies feasible and valuable for both comparative re- search and for the development of interorganizational research principles and processes. With the cumulative experience of a number of case studies in the inter- organizational field, theory and research methodology in this comparatively new area should be strengthened. CHAPTER II THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS Introduction This chapter contains four maJor sections. These sections along with their principal sub-sections are as follows: General Literature Review -- Part I - Organizational Research Part II - Interorganizational and Environ- mental Research Part III - Overall Critique of Literature Specific Literature Review -- Part I - Organizational Effectiveness Part II - Domain, Domain Consensus, and Domain Dependency Part III - Organizational Dependency and Joint Programs Theoretical Linkages -- Part I - The Domain Dependency (Consensus) Model Part II - The Resource Dependency (Innova- tion) Model The Hypothesis The General Literature Review section begins with a brief review of notable organizational-level research -- principally, case studies -- and then notes the beginnings of systematic studies in interorganizational relations and processes. Part II of this section is composed of a more inten- sive analysis and critique of the background literature that is relevant to the dissertation purpose. This section, 11 12 titled, ”Interorganizational and Environmental Research,” covers the following areas: 1. Environmental influence on the organi- zation; 2. Organizational strategies for environ- mental adaptation; 3. Resource exchange, coordination and integration; and 4. The environmental context. This first section concludes with an overall critique of the literature. The second maJor section of the chapter covers the key concepts utilized in the hypothesis. Titled "Specific Literature Review," this section integrates the conceptual and empirical background of each concept with its opera- tional use in the dissertation. In the process, the con- cepts are analyzed and critiqued. The third section, "Theoretical Linkages," contains the two models proposed -- the Domain Dependency or "Con- sensus" model and the Resource Dependency or "Innovation" model -- are traced from the two-fold division of Organi- zational Effectiveness, and by separate theoretical and operational routes, culminate with organizational inter- action in the form of Joint Programs. The fourth and concluding section is comprised of the hypothesis. The survey questions that measure the hypoth- esis are found in Appendix B. 13 General Literature Review Part I - Organizational Research A review of studies using the organization itself as the unit of analysis, and employing various combinations of internal and external characteristics as either depend- ent or independent variables in relation to each other, is helpful for an understanding of this research design. Historically, the dominant perspectives of organiza- tional research were Weber's structural and process con- ception of bureaucracy and Simon's social and rational approach to human behavior and decision-making in organi- zations. Increasingly, empirical studies began to focus on the ”goodness of fit" between individual and organiza- tion, on the consequences of organizational coordination and control for productivity and performance, and on the human and social cost of the cult of efficiency (Heydebrand, 1973). The nature of research strategy and methods paralleled this human relations emphasis, util- izing participant observation, small group experiments and sample surveys of attitudes and perceptions. Exam- ples of this approach include Roethlisberger and Dickson's (1939), Whyte's (1935) and Blau's (1955) empirical studies. Recent studies have tended to regard structural or process characteristics of organizations as dependent var- iables and either environmental or goal attainment factors as causal influences. This approach has emphasized inter- organizational relations, and examples of it include Udy's 14 (1965) and Stinchcombe's (1965) comparative studies, Thompson and McEvens' (1958) goal achievement research, and the organ- izational typology and change studies of Etzioni (1965) and Bennis (1966), respectively. The trend toward using common organizational characteristics for comparison and generali- zation purposes paralleled increased emphasis on the whole organization as the unit of analysis. However, Heydebrand points out a troubling paradox in this evolution. As organ- izational research moved toward the entire organization as a research unit, researchers came to rely almost exclusively on the case study approach. Unfortunately, though these case studies do portray a total empirical reality, findings are not easily generalized to other organizations. Noted organizational case studies include Selznick's study of the TVA (1948), Gouldner's research on managerial succes- sion in an industrial firm (1954), Blau's analyses of in— formal groups in two government agencies and their modify- ing effects on overall organizational direction (1955 and 1963), the Lipset e£_al. study of democracy in the Typog- raphers Union (1956), and the Janowitz study of military officers (1960). Heydebrand does mention two case studies that stand out in particular for their theoretical strength, richness in detail, and precise conceptual differentiation (Heydebrand, 1973). The first study, Burns and Stalker's The Management of Innovation (1961), examines the nature of innovation and change in twenty British production organizations. As a 15 result of this study, the authors developed a typological distinction between mechanistic and organic systems of management. In turn, the particular system that evolved was partially explained as a differential response to external instability and change. Thus, both a classifica- tion scheme and organizational response sets to environ- mental stimuli were developed. The second study, Crozier's The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (1964) was a comparative analy- sis, also yielding certain measurable traits across a number of organizations. His study covered a clerical agency and a government-owned industrial organization. Both of these studies drew from their interview and case study material certain analytical variables which con- tributed to theoretical generalizations. They also focused on the influence of the external environment on organiza- tional processes in a systematic way. Thus, the strategic use of empirical data in these studies enabled the research- ers to develop hypotheses of more general theoretical inter- est and to formulate generalizations toward greater under- standing of organizations. Yet, this particular type of study is the exception and a systematic and comparative analysis of organizations has been largely absent from organizational research. A few other organizational researchers have emphasized interorganizational comparisons and processes -- for exam- ple: Litwak (1961), Chandler (1962), Hall (1962), Woodward (1965), Kimberly (1967), Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), Perrow ., 9.5.1.9.: .Ir them...” 0.5% .‘...v~ 1 I 16 (1967), Blau and Schoenherr (1971), and Meyer (1972). Yet, the researchers who have attempted to generate comparative or systematic results have found it difficult to retain the power to encompass differences between concrete instances, and simultaneously, to have the power to explain these dif- ferences rather than accounting for them after the fact. This dilemma poses the problem confronting scientific endeavor in general. That is, mediating between theoret- ical scope or the problem of generality and conceptual- operational precision or the problem of testability (Heydebrand, 1973). The relatively new field of "interorganizational rela- tions" represents a positive step toward understanding and resolving this scientific and empirical difficulty. Spe- cifically, this area of inquiry and study has taken organ- izational research out of an unrealistic environmental vacuum, and it has shed light on variables and processes external to organization boundaries. More importantly for the long run, it has formed the basis for an appropriately separate and distinct conceptual and empirical research area -- interorganizational and environmental relations. In turn, research in this new field involving the nature of interorganizational interactions and environmental exchange and influences is creating a clearer, more sys- tematic understanding of the organization itself. 17 General Literature Review Part II - Interorganizational and Environmental Research Conceptual and empirical work in interorganizational and environmental relations can be divided into four areas. The sub-divisions are: 1) Environmental influence on the organi- zation; 2) Organizational strategies for environ- mental adaptation; 3) Resource exchange, coordination and integration; and 4) The environmental context. Each of these sub-divisions overlaps the other areas some- what, yet contributes uniquely and individually to an overall perspective on interorganizational and environ- mental relations. Therefore, these individual areas will be reviewed here briefly in order to give a theoretical perspective and an empirical framework for the more spe- cific concepts to follow in the Specific Literature Re- view and for the Theoretical Linkages that introduce the hypothesis. Epyironmental Influence on the Organization This research principally poses environmental attri- butes and factors as an influence on overall organiza— tional effectiveness or on specific structural or process characteristics of the organization. Because of the relative abundance of research on this subJect, it is helpful to sub-divide the material into four categories. These categories involve environmental influence on: 1) organizational effectiveness; 2) interorganizational linkages; 3) organizational power and control; and 4) internal structure and processes. 18 A considerable body of literature has taken shape since the 1950's on the varied environmental pressures and influ- ences that tend to shape the organizational pursuit of effectiveness. These writings portray the task and con- textual environments and their effects on organizational goal achievement, integration, and internal and external change and adaptation. In some instances, they trace ef- fects on more precise internal criteria such as control of turnover and waste, cost-benefit ratios and the profit margin.1 Interorganizational linkages embrace various forms of transactions, exchange and coordination as well as inter- action mechanisms that facilitate exchange or cooperation, both phenomena resulting from organizational perceptions of environmental dependencies. Selznick (1948) pioneered the concept of a planned organizational adaptation to gain environmental support and create favorable community and consumer consensus; Ridgeway (1957) and Elling and Halebsky (1961) both conceived of organizations as having input and output dependencies that could be handled through exchange or transaction mechanisms; Levine & White (1961) saw organ- izations as systems of exchange that are dependent upon the environment for resources and favorable transactions to preserve the organization. Thompson (1962) concluded that boundary-spanning roles and role—players on the periphery 1 A succeeding section on "Organizational Effectiveness" elaborates on the research and writings in this partic- ular area. I III: I ,II II.‘ Fl?‘ I 19 of the organization are important sources of adaptation to environmental influences; Litwak and Hylton (1962) and Litwak and Meyer (1966) proposed interaction mechanisms for environmental adaptation through propositions on co- ordinating agencies, organizational prerequisites for exchange, and the Balance Theory of Coordination, a theory citing a mid-point of social distance and coordinating entities in order to make exchange feasible between bureauc- racies and community groups; and Jacobs (1974) notes five points where organizations are dependent on their environ- ment -- namely: input acquisition; output disposal; capi- tal acquisition; acquisition of production factors; and obtaining a labor force. Jacobs sees linkages and exchanges as the means for the organization to insure a continuous supply of essential and non-substitutable resources. Organizationa1_power and control are problematic because of competition, conflict or pressure from the task and contextual environments. Emerson (1962), analyzing " dependence on "B" concluded that it organization "A's depended on A's motivational investment in goals mediated by B, and the availability of these goals outside of the A-B relationship. Thus, if "B" was one of the few sup- pliers of an essential resource not obtainable elsewhere, "B" has considerable interorganizational power over "A". Jacobs (1974) follows up on this concept in equating power with the capacity to obtain essential and non-substitutable resources from the environment. Jacobs also defines 20 control as a broader concept than pgwer in that it need not be deliberate or planned, and there need be no resist- ance. Blau (1964) added to Emerson's concept by making the existence of coercion explicit as a means to influ- ence, and seeing power and control in terms of creating vulnerability as well as dependence. He interpreted .EEHEE as a generalized currency used to equilibrate exchange imbalances. Organizations enable to recipro- cate in exchanges would use compliance to pay their debts. A group of researchers have related organizational power and control to the domain established by the organi- zation, and the consensus granted it by the relevant envi- ronmental agents. The domain consensus sought by the organization in order to operate effectively and obtain resource support from the environment represents a strong environmental dependency. A number of writers, then, deal with power and efficacy in organization decision- making and effectiveness in terms of organizational dependence on initial and continued consensus, including: Levine and White (1961); Maniha and Perrow (1965); Thompson (1967) ; Warren (1969); and Braito M. (1972).1 Environmental influence on internal structure and processes has received substantially more attention from empirical researchers in recent years. Eisenstadt (1959) spoke of organizational dependence on external resources 1 A succeeding section on "Domain, Domain Consensus and Domain Dependency" elaborates on research in this area. 21 and power, and their influence on structural characteris- tics and activities. Dill (1958) and Simpson and Gulley (1962) examined environmental influence on managerial and organizational autonomy, respectively; Evan (1966) showed empirically that environmental "set” characteristics or the nature of the competition and resource context corre- late with organizational and autonomy structure; Lefton and Rosengren (1966) investigated client influence on organizational program and service activity; Pugh'e§_al. (1968) and Inkson gp_al. (1970) researched the influence of seven primary variables comprising organizational con- text on three dimensions of internal structure, including organizational autonomy; and Aiken and Hage (1968) showed that an interorganizational activity such as Joint Programs may influence internal structure and processes. Organizational Strategies for Environmental Adaptation This research area is related quite closely to the initial category covered -- environmental influence on the organization -- except that this segment involves much more than organizational coping, reacting, or consciously or unconsciously altering structure or processes in response to the environment. In this instance, the organization initiates a strategy and plan to actively coopt, work with or neutralize environmental agents, groups and institutions. Selznick (1948) illustrated this environmental strategy when speaking of formal and informal cooptation as an organizational activity intended to avert external threats 22 to organizational success; Thompson and McEwen (1958) con- ceptualized the forms of interaction possible in the midst of goal pursuit, based on the organizational need to nego- tiate for scarce resources obtainable outside organization boundaries; Thompson (1962) showed that since output roles span organization boundaries, they may be important sources of adaptation to environmental influences; Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) found that effective organizations have established a "fit" between their internal specialized structures and external task environments; Perrow (1967) builds a case for the organizational motivation to protect and extend its own technology as a key determinant of its autonomy; and Thompson (1967) illustrates by careful formu- lation of a series of domain propositions that the organi- zation can pursue a favorable environmental strategy for survival and growth given the competitive as well as coop- erative realities of the interorganizational marketplace. For internal consistency and for an understanding of their practical utility, these propositions are posed with an assumption that norms of rationality are obserVed by the organization. Resource Exchange, Coordination and Integration Research in the interorganizational exchange and co- ordination areas has been largely composed of conceptual treatments of the subJect. With the exception of the Levine and White (1961) and Levine, Paul and White (1963) studies, empirical research was largely absent from the field until 23 the Aiken and Hage (1968) and Britain's Aston group (Pugh 2.1.2.1., 1968 and 1969; Inkson M” 1970) studies. Homans with his "Social Behavior as Exchange” in 1958 integrated the concepts of social behavior with material and non-material resource exchange in a marketplace of scarce and valued resources. This conceptual breakthrough led to the research emphasis on social service functions within the realistic context of economic competition and conflict. Levine and White (1961) in their formulation of organizations as "systems of exchange," and Blau (1964) in his exchange and power theory, both expanded the Homan's construct from the individual and group levels to total systems or organizations. Both researchers stressed the organizational importance of favorable exchanges with other organizations both for operational success and envi- ronmental power and influence. In a related stream of theoretical thought, a few writers concentrated on prerequisites and facilitating agents for inter-agency exchange and cooperation. Litwak and Hylton (1962) explored coordinating agencies as mechan- isms for effecting exchange and encouraging inter-action among agencies. Litwak and Meyer (1966) emphasized a viable means for bureaucratic and primary organizations to coordinate programs and services of Joint interest. Reid (1964), on the other hand, analyzed unmediated exchange and coordination in his approach to a theory of coordination. He set forth three preconditions of coordination: shared U.II|T|L1I‘III|I. .>IIIII >I. I i" 24 goals; complementary resources; and efficient mechan- isms. He also cited three levels of agency commitment to coordination with other agencies. They are ad hoc case coordination, systematic case coordination or "ser- ' and program coordination or integra- vice integration,’ tion. This formulation goes a few steps beyond the Levine-White and Litwak-Hylton prerequisites for exchange and coordination, and predicts the type of agencies and resources that are likely to be involved. The Reid typology's most complex and demanding inter- agency commitment -- program coordination or integration -- was operationalized as the Joint Program in the Aiken and Hage field research a few years later. The Environmental Context The Tavistock Institute researchers, Emery and Trist (1965), pioneered in treating the environment of organi- zations itself as a "causal texture." That is, they examined the processes through which parts of the environ- ment become related to each other, the interdependencies and relationships that evolve, and the effects on organi- zations. This causal texture is classified as a quasi- independent domain. They further postulated four ideal types of environment ordered according to their "system connectedness" from placid, randomized to turbulent. Turbulence is increasingly becoming descriptive of the dominant environmental field surrounding organizations according to Emery and Trist. It is characterized by 25 complexity as well as rapidity of change in the causal interactions within the environment. Dynamic processes arise from the field itself to make organizational deci- sions and adaptability more hazardous and more perish- able, and not infrequently, beyond organizational antic- ipation or control. An industrial example of a turbulent environment is the situation of the relatively small domestic oil pro- ducer during the 1973 to 1975 period. The Arab oil em- bargo cut off a regular subsidy divided among all domes- tic producers, large and small, and created a "shortfall” psychology in the eyes of consumers. Consumers exerted pressures on oil companies to guarantee current and future oil regardless of specific price. The price rose, and with the embargo giving way to inflated prices for imported oil, consumer and therefore political pressure was generated to curb usage of and dependence on oil, restrict further price increases, and to find or develop substitutes. All of these interacting agents controlling the small oil company's environment -- Arab oil exporting countries; large domestic oil companies; Congress; the Administration; the consumers; and the mass media -- create a turbulent "causal texture" in which the small company neither has control nor can it relate organiza- tion efficiency to its future survival and success. The matter is largely in the hands of powerful, interacting environmental elements. It. I III: \ [Ill l U lIIII" .l .EII.I)I . a, 1" 26 An example of this phenomenon among human service agencies is the Legal Aid Bureau. A traditional service of the local Bar Association and supported by the com- munity United Way, this agency in rapid succession con- fronts new Supreme Court decisions tending to multiply its work, yet encounters competition from the OEO's legal service arm. However, the uncertain and changing status of the latter agency and the control controversy between President and Congress concerning its role vis-a-vis cases and clients creates an environmental complexity and uncertainty for the Legal Aid Bureau that defies rational understanding or planning. The Emery-Trist construct applies to a majority of human service agencies and it is expressed in both task and contextual factors -- in particular: radically dif- ferent funding sources and greater needs due to infla- tion and local demand; the changing roles of governmental regulatory agencies; increased local pressure for ser- vices; and the rise of consumerism and organized commun- ity interest groups. These environmental agents interact in a wider domain that the organization can neither con- trol nor predict. In sum, this pattern illustrates the fact that the contextual environment can be as influen- tial as the more immediate task environment in creating Organizational Dependency or external decision control in the agency's domain. A few years later, Terreberry (1968) did a non-empirical study and utilized the Emery 27 and Trist concept of the environment. She concluded that organizations are increasingly defined by their environ- mental interaction and that organizational change is largely induced by forces in the environment. In a conceptual work with negligible and non-quanti- tative survey evidence from three cities, Warren (1967) focuses on the interorganizational field of community- level decision agencies. He sees the field as "crowded and turbulent" also, with "Community Decision Organiza- tions interacting in loose coalitional or social choice contexts in ways which often affect one another adversely or favorably, but with little or no concert, and with few clearly defined norms governing the interaction." (Warren, 1967: 417). Clearly, the environmental context has an inter- active and influential life of its own apart from specific interorganizational transactions and relationships. Therefore, the more diffuse community and institutional atmosphere and values have favorable or adverse effects on inter-agency initiatives and coordination programs. General Literature Review Part III - Overall Critique of Literature Backgroupd In the relatively new field of organizational-level and interorganizational research, a substantial empirical vacuum exists. Few case studies and fewer quantitative, 28 comparative studies with inferential power have been con- ducted. Those empirical studies that have been completed represent tentative efforts in the foundation stages of a new area of research. Thus, in the research designs and methodologies of these studies considerable time and analytical energy are devoted to the development of valid measuring instruments for organization-level phenomena, the formulation of common -- and thus, comparable -- organizational terminology and variables, the measurement and evaluation of confounding or intervening influences from the task and contextual environments, and generally, the effective planning, conduct and standardization of research for more general application and future repli- cation. Virtually unexplored are key lines of possible empir- ical investigation that may uncover confounding influences, deeper organizational patterns or more relevant, composite variables, for valid reliable predictions of organization- al and interorganizational relations. For example, the particular stage ofpgrowth that an organization finds it- self experiencing may be an important antecedent or moder- ating variable with causal implications for the entire organization. The growth stage, then, is a variable that may skew, neutralize or unduly emphasize the conclusions of empirically sound research. A vacuum is also evident in the synthesis of short and long term organizational phenomena. Past studies tended to assume either a short 29 run or long run perspective, and therefore, conclusions were anchored to either time frame. Yet, the empirical reality of the organization requires an integration of both perspectives. Moreover, social or human service agencies in pare ticular are increasingly typical of organizations today. They are service-producing, non-profit in character, employ a relatively high percentage of white collar per- sonnel in general and women in particular and they have a high concentration of administrative and professional people. The collective impact of these trends has been to emphasize the rapid growth and emergence of human service agencies. Their developing importance also has made the relative lack of empirical studies in this area more obvious and more difficult to comprehend. The need for empirical testing and empirically-based principles in interorganizational relations also underlines the need for quantitative, comparative studies which indicate validity across a variety of organizations. In this way, logical interorganizational comparisons become possible and measurable variables and processes become standard- ized and suitable for replication. Empirically-based case studies have an important role to play in the early stages of research in a new field. In the absence of a unifying theoretical perspective in this incipient area of interorganizational relations, this type of research helps to build classification 30 schemes, isolate key organizational variables, determine appropriate levels of analysis, and facilitate both replication and longitudinal-type studies. Yet, cases have to be multiplied in order to generate valid and reliable variable patterns and predictors. In addition, few case studies have been done that meet high standards in theory, methodology and analysis. Those that have met high standards (for example: Burns and Stalker‘ZI96I7; Crozier 59647; Blau £9557; and Gouldner @9547) have tended to concentrate on internal organizational phenom- ena and variables. Empirical Research: Product-Producing Organizations Few empirical studies exist in the field of inter- organizational relations. Most of the research that has been done utilizes product-producing industries (for example: Burns and Stalker ZI96;7; Pugh.e£_EINZI968 and 19697; Inkson _e_t___a_1. £9797; Lawrence and Lorsch @9677; and Negandhi and Reimann‘ZI97z7). Among these studies, the Lawrence and Lorsch and Aston group studies deserve more attention for the purposes of this dissertation. The Lawrence and Lorsch research is strong concep- tually and analytically. In a comparative study of six organizations, the influence of sub-environments on the structure and process of organization sub-systems is carefully investigated and analyzed. Using the organi- zation and its sub-system as the units of analysis, this study associates organizational adJustment to environmental t I, I! INF-III! I l I ‘- 31 requirements with the economic performance of the organi- zation. The two pivotal organizational attributes used in the research -- differentiation and integration -- are skillfully conceptualized and operationalized. Structural variables used are well grounded theoretically, and are drawn from the Woodward (1965) and Burns and Stalker (1961) studies. On the other hand, the study lacks conceptual and operational clarity in the development and use of environ- mental variables, the key independent variables represent- ing environmental influences on the organization. For example, measures of uncertainty in the environment such as "rate of change in conditions" or the "time span of definite feedback from the environment" are broad and nebulous in concept and defy appropriate application. Regarding methodology, the obJective attributes of the environment as distinguished from the management's per- ception of them is not distinguished. The Pugh and Inkson, g£_a1., or Aston group studies, are rich in empirical detail. Embracing over fifty manu- facturing plants in each study, the authors have developed seven contextual variables and measured their influence on organizational structure. Included among the dimensions of structure are organizational autonomy_and centraliza- Eigp measures; interorganizational dependence represents one of the contextual factors. The level of analysis and the methodology of this study are exceptionally good. The 32 level of analysis and the methodology of this study are exceptionally good. The complexities of organizational- level behavior and the assessment of component variables is integrated into the research design. The sole disad- vantage of the study is the fact that it is virtually impossible to replicate elsewhere. Though both of these studies are useful for purposes of this dissertation, conceptual and empirical research in service-producing organizations is more relevant and valuable. Empirical Research: Service-Producing Organizations Empirical research is rare among service delivery organizations, and rarer still among local human or social service agencies. Notable among the interorganizational studies that do exist are the Heydebrand (1973) hospital research and the health and welfare agency studies of Levine and White (1961), Levine, Paul and White (1963), and Aiken and Hage (1968). A few other studies in the human service field have an empirical base for their con- cepts and analysis, but lack specific operationalizing and measurement of their concepts (for example: Litwak and Hylton [I96_2_7; Warren [19677; Maniha and Perrow @9657; and Braito, 2.2.21. 597g). Most other research in inter- organizational and environmental relations are conceptual analyses. The Heydebrand, Levine and White, and Aiken and Hage studies are especially relevant to this research. The Heydebrand (1973) study of structure and process 33 in 7,000 American hospitals was an attempt to develop a theoretical framework for analysis of organizations and to develop further a quantitative procedure applicable to organizations as the unit of analysis. This study had considerable empirical strength at the organizational level. Heydebrand defined and operationalized "organi- zational autonomy" and constructed a comprehensive frame- work for organizational analysis. A relative drawback of the study is the lack of a longitudinal dimension to the research; key variables such as ”professionalism" and the ”structure of bureaucratic authority" fail to reveal pat- tern and direction over a period of time. Nevertheless, Heydebrand's development of structural variables such as functional complexity, complexity of goals, organizational autonomy and degree of professionalism, was an important contribution to later studies such as the Aiken and Hage research. The Levine and White (1961) research covered twenty- two health and welfare agencies in a New EngMnd.town. This research drew upon the exchange theory of Homans (1958) and the environmental dependency concept and strat- egies of Thompson and McEwen (1958). Conceptualizing organizations as well as coordination among agencies as "systems of exchange," the authors developed further the germinal concepts of domain and organizational interde- pendence. Though the study was relatively small and not quantitative or comparable for later replication, it did III E LIP. LIT )Lt 34 carefully define and operationalize components of human service agency interaction. Thus, this research helped prepare the way for conceptual analyses on resource ex- change by Thompson (1962 and 1967) and Reid (1964), and empirical work by Aiken and Hage (1968). The Aiken and Hage research analyzed the impact of environment on organizational processes in sixteen health and welfare agencies. Proposing that processes of con- flict and cooperation can be incorporated into the same model of organizational interdependence, they related inter-agency Joint programs to organizational complexity, innovation, de-centralization, internal communication and low formalization. These internal processes presume ably are correlates of agency interdependence. Aiken and Hage summarized and tested empirically a resource dependency rationale for inter-agency relations within a framework of inter-agency competition for scarce resources. Skillfully, they summarized clearly and com- prehensively the background research in the field, and in the process, defined and operationalized a number of com- parative and measureable concepts. Moreover, the authors posit assumptions as a basis for their hypotheses that appear well-supported and logically constructed. Also importantly, they attempt to build predictive validity and reliability into the research through their internal controls and statistical procedures. The Aiken and Hage research has limitations and 35 difficulties in the areas of methodology and analysis. The small number of agencies studied -- ten private and six public -- make agency-level analysis and conclusions uncertain and tentative. In their attempt to broaden and add validity to perceptions utilized in the study, the authors made a number of arbitrary decisions about the particular personnel positions to be covered in the inter- views, the percentage of staff interviewed for each level of the agency hierarchy, and the increased social power on higher levels of the hierarchy. In their inclusion of decision-makers in lower levels of the agency, they may have created a bias on perceptions based on remoteness and lack of information regarding interorganizational relations of the agency. The concept behind the control variables is sound but their measurement appears narrow and over-simplified. For example, organizational innovation is measured by the number of new programs. This measure would fail to factor in structural and process changes in existing programs, service upgrading or client impact innovation. The.ip§eg- nal communication variable is measured solely by the num- ber of committees and the number of committee meetings per month. This criterion is unduly fragmentary for the con- cept of communication. In their theoretical path, the authors never eXplain the process whereby organizations become diverse. Yet, internal diversity is a vital part of the agency cycle 36 leading to Joint programs. Regardless of shortcomings, the Aiken and Hage study emerges as a bold attempt to measure organizational var- iables in relation to inter-agency relations. The con- cept and application of Joint Programs is developed further from the Black and Kase (1963) "functional coop- eration" and Reid's (1964) "program co-ordination" con- structs. The strengths of the study, therefore, are use- ful and appropriate in the theory development of this research. Certain conceptual analyses in interorganizational relations have proven to be well-conceived and useful in pinpointing potential areas for empirical investigation. Reid's levels of coordination and conditions appropriate for inter-agency cooperation laid the groundwork for the Aiken and Hage study. Thompson's domain and organiza- tion-environment analysis was well-supported theoreti- cally and was integrated into a comprehensive organiza- tional framework. Finally, the Selznick case study, though remote in time from current studies, produced durable environ- mental concepts relating to organizational adaptation. Selznick's thorough and in-depth study of TVA in its early stages of existence opened up system-environment analysis and helped to usher in the field of interorgan- izational and environmental relations. 37 Specific Literature Review Part I - Organizational Effectiveness Introduction Organizational effectiveness has been represented as the criterion for progress and success at the organiza- tional level and often within subsystems of the organiza- tion, in the conceptual analyses of numerous writers in recent years. Therefore, a theoretical and operational understanding of this concept is essential if one is to pursue organizational—level and organization-wide motiva- tions and activity in interorganizational relations. More specifically, in the context of examining organizational policy and actions in relation to Joint Programs with other organizations, it is essential to have this ultimate criterion understood both in a conceptual and applied sense. Definitions and Scppe Organizational effectiveness has been analyzed and interpreted in terms of the following: impact on society (Parsons, 1960); efficiency in the use of assets (Etzioni, 1960); success in serving the principal beneficiary (Blau and Scott, 1962); a balance between making a profit and attention to the internal human system (Guest, 1962); human asset values (Bennis, 1966); environmental bargain- ing in obtaining scarce and valued resources (Yuchtman and Seashore, 1967); the degree of cooperation attained with other organizations (Price, 1968); consonance of 38 internal organization process with external demands (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967); a system's ability to learn and to perform according to changing contingencies in its environment (Terreberry, 1968); behaviorally oriented measures and economic criteria such as employee morale or low turnover (Negandhi and Reimann, 1973); a three component construct of goal achievement, integration of personnel and adaptation to the environment (Duncan, 1973); various quality and efficiency measures, depending on whether the organization is a business, professional and service oriented, governmental, or a voluntary association (Heydebrand, 1973); and finally, the formal'apd informal goals approach in which program performance is carefully monitored and is measured against stated obJectives (Osborn and Hunt, 1974). Difficulties in Definition and Scope Certain conceptual and operational difficulties arise in connection with both the nature and dimensions of organizational effectiveness. MOst investigators implic- itly or explicity assume both that organizations have an ultimate goal or mission toward which they are striving and that this ultimate criterion can be identified empir- ically and progress toward it measured.- This orientation to a specific goal is represented by many as the defining characteristic of complex organizations (Yuchtman and Seashore, 1967: 892). In application, however, formal goals are often difficult to measure, monitor, and .HWLIITEUTINH . 39 evaluate. They are Often expressed in vague qualitative terms; they often are presented as a series of co-equal goals with no regard to their relative priority or order in contributing to the organization; often they are not specific enough in terms of the time frame, performance measures, and short term versus long term dimensions. There is a second, principally empirical difficulty. Though a central issue in organizational effectiveness is environmental adaptation (see other writers noted above, as well as Parsons 119567 and Katz and Kahn.ZI96§7) and coping with environmental uncertainty (see Crozier‘ZI96g7 and Thompson ZI96Z7, for example), systematic theoretical or empirical analysis of the process or processes whereby organizations adapt environmentally has been lacking (Duncan, 1973: 273). Moreover, the criterion for organi- zational effectiveness becomes quite complex as it en- counters the operational world. It is a dynamic, value laden and often disputed obJective, and its precise nature and value depends considerably on measuring methods and evaluation techniques available to the organization. _§ystematic Approaches Yuchtman and Seashore (1967: 897) have made a valu- - able contribution in developing a system resource approach to organizational effectiveness. Their approach incorpo- rates the following: (1) the organization itself as the frame of refer- ence, rather than some external entity or a particular set of people; 4O (2) the eXplicit treatment of the relations between the organization and its environment as a cen- tral ingredient in the definition of effective- ness; (3) a theoretically general framework capable of encompassing different kinds of complex organ- izations; (4) a latitude for uniqueness, variability and change in the operations for assessing effec- tiveness for any one organization, yet main- taining the unity of the underlying framework for comparative evaluation; and (5) a guide to the identification of performance and action variables relevant to organizational effectiveness. This open system model treats formal organizations not as phenomena incidental to individual behavior or societal functioning but as entities appropriate for analysis ap their own level; it also points to the nature of inter- relatedness between the organization and its environment as the key source of information concerning organizational effectiveness, for the attainment of a goal always implies a change in the state of the organization vis-a-vis its environment. Thus, organizational effectiveness is based on the distinctiveness of the organization as an identi- fiable social structure and the interdependence of the organization with its environment. Yuchtman and Seashore (1967: 892) conclude that their "system resource” approach to organizational effectiveness would lead to an operational definition of "organizational bargaining position as reflected in the ability of the organization, in either absolute or relative terms, to AP IV“;- UV-ut: g Q ‘0 :‘7‘5 “m.- «FUD- ~¥ ‘1.-~ DEV: ‘ .g \ “40‘ ~:'2 .. (I) Ln exploit its environment in the acquisition of scarce and valued resources." The more recent formulation of Robert Duncan (1973) drew upon previous writings and concluded with a three component concept: 1. Goal achievement, or the extent to which the system Is attaining its formally defined goals and obJectives; 2. Integration, or how completely the members are being integrated into the system through clearly defined roles; 3. Adaptation, or the extent to which the system is adapting structurally to its environment so that occupants can adapt to new demands, result- ing from a changing environment, on their Jobs. Duncan's definition still lacks operational clarity and completeness in that goals are often expressed and sought on an informal basis, and are not codified or formally stated. In addition, his second component, integration, fits logically into internal goal achievement, for it involves organizational Job descriptions and specifica- tions, orientation and training, career development and personnel policies generally. Balancing Internal and External Factors As Yuchtman and Seashore had stressed, a critique of an organization and its critical progress and success cannot be on the basis of its effectiveness merely as component or contributor to a larger system such as society, the economy, or the community. Likewise neither can it be viewed as the sum total or the collection of ‘ “A?” ouh°". r ‘.nv A‘s-1""; vV n .9 b n- ,4 “w gnu-0“ at' A. l 42 component criteria within the organization such as inter- personal or departmental success, unit efficiencies, goal attainment of individual units or individual performance. Effectiveness criteria must be based on organizational level and organization-wide progress and success. In a somewhat analogous way, effectiveness criteria can neither be exclusively internal as opposed to external nor short term as opposed to long term. For example, internal effectiveness can appear optimal with favorable cost-benefit ratios, high performance and efficiency in- dicators, and goal achievement; yet, the organization may be ignoring changing consumer tastes or needs, effects of new government legislation or fiscal policy, or changes in the culture of the immediate community. In time, a lack of responsiveness to the environment could cost the organization in overall effectiveness. On the other hand, external effectiveness can appear optimal as the organiza- tion sees its share of the market grow, a favorable public image of the organization develop, and its customers or clients express satisfaction; yet, internal personnel policy may be counter-productive or unrealistic, and eventually, morale, productivity and quality control may suffer. Thus, external effectiveness will be affected at some point in addition to internal. Internal Effectiveness Internal effectiveness involves the efficient use of internal resources and the effective balancing of the cent l.\\ ‘U '.' FA6¢ «V g‘ .1 E. a: Agl iZOLIOr 43 differentiation-integration processes in seeking optimal goal achievement. The pursuit of rationality in internal operating processes of the organization stresses prin- cipally the internal options apart from direct environ- mental pressures. For example, the protection and exten- sion of its technology is a goal-oriented process in which the context and decision choices are comparatively clear, measurable and controllable. Thus, internal effectiveness is singular and salient in its contribution to overall organization effectiveness. In our admittedly open sys- tems, however, internal is integrated at some point with external effectiveness. For example, Levine and White's (1961) inter-agency exchange research termed the organi- zation a "system of exchanges" and cited agency goals as motivators toward these exchanges. Reid (1964), in an interorganizational study, still sees operational goals as organizational measures of success. And as Thompson (1967: 10) has said: ”We will conceive of complex organ- izations as open systems, hence indeterminate and faced with uncertainty, but at the same time as subJect to cri- teria of rationality and hence needing determinateness and certainty." Egjernal_Effectiveness On the other hand, external effectiveness involves organizational planning for and coping with uncertainties in the task and contextual environments in its pursuit of survival and growth in a changing milieu. This 44 environmental adaptation can be divided into papk and contextual areas of concern. In the task area, the man- aging of transactional interdependencies is central for organizational effectiveness (Thompson, 1962 and 1967). Further, the sub-systems of the organization develop dif- ferential attributes and modes of operation that fit the characteristics and demands of their sub-environments (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). Osborn and Hunt (1974: 231) concluded from their research that, ”Both task environ- ment dependency and interorganizational interaction alone and in combination are positively and significantly cor- related with effectiveness.” And Yuchtman and Seashore (1967) argue convincingly that the crucial issue for organizational effectiveness is the agency's bargaining position with organizations in the environment that have control over scarce and valued resources needed by the focal organization. In the contextual area, the organi- zation attempts to guarantee future goal achievement and growth through interaction with environmental ”support" agents -- for example, governmental franchise authorities and law makers, legal safeguards, media and public opinion networks, and the community's educational institutions. Parsons (1960) and Katz and Kahn (1966) both have stressed organizational reliance on environmental strategies and support mechanisms for survival and growth, and the conse- quent need for the organization to adapt to its environ- ment in order to remain a viable social system. Terreberry Pfiint (1‘ 45 (1968) pointed out that organizational functioning is increasingly externally induced, and that organizational adaptability is a function of ability to learn to perform in accord with environmental changes. As Esman (1972) shows, organizations must not only be successful in man- aging functional or.pa§k linkages, but also in adequately handling contextual linkages such as enabling or.pgppa- 'piyg relationships. Enabling linkages represent institu- tional mandates and funding for the birth and growth of organizations; normative linkages are those value supports offered by the social, political and religious institu- tions in the community. Overall Organizational Effectiveness Thus, a synthesis of internal and external effective- ness is essential for an integral and comprehensive organ- izational effectiveness. Therefore, the concept is viewed in this paper as a two-dimension construct: 1. Internal Effectiveness, with a principal obJece tive ofgoaI achievement; and 2. External Effectiveness, with a principal obJec- tive of envIronmental adaptation. Organizational effectiveness, then, is the departure point and the unifying organizational criterion that moti- vates the agency to act on its domain or resource depen- dencies, and to coalesce programs with other agencies. Though the comparative contributions from internal and external factors may vary considerably depending on the nature of the agency and its environments, both sides of ,5. A?‘.'" tube V‘:‘ Q but“. "' 6'0“». '3' ‘. vvu-a.é [~- . A sblr'e I .0 1-. rue add ‘1‘ 1Oh I. 1' U 46 the organizational effectiveness construct are consis- tently present and operating to some degree. Specific Literature Review Part II - Domain, Domain Consensus and Domain Dependency The concepts of Domain and Domain Consensus serve as both the condition and the rationale for organization- al dependency and for Joint program activity. Further, Domain Consensus is a prerequisite and a facilitator for coping interorganizationally with either a domain or re- source dependency. Therefore, a conceptual and opera- tional understanding of these terms is essential for an adequate analysis of the hypotheses. Domain Domain is defined appropriately by Levine and White (1961: 597) as, "the specific goals the organization wishes to pursue and the functions it undertakes in order to implement its goals." Operationally, they refer to domain as the claims that an organization stakes out for itself in terms of: 1) need covered, e.g., disease; health maintenance; social or physical rehabilitation; 2) population served, i.e., clients or consumers, and their qualifying characteristics; and 3) the range of services rendered, e.g., vaccinations; physical examina- tions; recreational facilities and supervision; on-the- Job training. "P." 'o.\" pt Q 7‘. CG“‘- ~lb~ AIKV' -V..~ C“’ W' 1 15" t1f‘r a' ‘V.. ‘ v .. . s .. . , a T“ E I h "s .v . : av» nk~ “U. .s a: a VI. M... 2 e 3 _ e a h... .s .v an. -. .\ h.“ C& v i .0 47 Domain Consensus Domain consensus, on the other hand, is a common agreement, formal or informal, among relevant organiza- tions in the task and contextual environments on the extent and limits of the individual organization's Eggp- pippe'and'gpale. The foregoing definition represents a synthesis of the Levine and White concept with conceptual development in this research. Levine, Paul and White (1963: 1191) offer a helpful operationalization of domain consensus: i.e., "the degree to which they (agencies) agree and accept each others' claims with regard to prob— lems covered, services offered, and population served." In this research, a somewhat broader operational defini- tion is utilized in that both the task or transactional apg the contextual environment is included in the con- sensus. This inclusion appears valid as contextual factors and agents such as the social and politial atmosphere and legal sanctions tend to help or hinder delivery of services. Task and Contextual Environments Dill (1958: 410) defined the task environment of management as consisting of "inputs of information from external sources." In defining the task environment as stimuli to which the organization is exposed, he dis- tinguished it from.pa§k§ which are the organization's interpretation of what environmental inputs mean for behavior. Certainly the latter are subJect to errors q I v- ‘4 ,- i S p- .- onbuhn v5 n in! 'vd-v- C’- ‘! A‘n Vet; -;U-V.o-.¢ 94-04 A“ a’—n‘. e._.:: 'c A»- flhF‘AQDO. v-.. Q Rt ) ) \Al \.\..I h 1 2 ad .- 1 Ms. Ht 2. o -v CU \. W V hgt i 48 of perception and the bias of past experience. For pur- poses of this research it is clear that agency director interpretations and biases are integral to interorgani- zational policies and activity. The mediation of envir- onmental realities by decision makers in the organization is an empirical truth to be assumed and accepted. What, then, is the distinction between the pagk.and contextual environments? Conceptually, the task environment has been referred to as those parts of the environment which are "relevant or potentially relevant to goal setting and goal attain- ment." This definition includes all of the organizational factors or means that are utilized in attaining goals. Both task and contextual factors are integrated in this definition. Dill (1958) operationalizes this concept, stating that it includes: 1) Customers or clients, both distributors and users; 2) Suppliers of materials, labor, capital, equipment and work space; 3) Competitors for both markets and resources; and 4) Regulatory groups, including governmental agencies, unions and interfirm associations. In this research design, the first two elements above are distinguished as task environments and the remain- ing two are considered as contextual. Moreover, the contextual environment embraces a wider environmental sweep than is indicated in Dill's definition. '~-: ‘ Cat-CU -.. \— curw" “ya-av . 3 :v'-CC-: enter 49 The task environment then refers to functional link- ages in the environment such as organizational input and output transactions. The contextual environment covers supportive and normative linkages such as competitors, civic and legal institutions, community leaders, the media, regulatory and licensing agencies, foundations and government funding organizations and public opinion generally. A distinction between these two segments of the environment is useful as the former involves the day-to-day operational relationships of the agency, the latter involves institutional support mechanisms and more diffuse environmental influences in the community. Both are relevant when referring to domain and domain consensus because both environments offer opportunities, contingencies and constraints that influence organiza- tional effectiveness. Domain is distinguished from the task and contextual environments as it embraces the gpage_as well as the .EEEEE to reach them. When establishing or extending domain, the agency thinks first of the goals sought and then explores the means required. For example, a senior citizen's agency stakes out a domain by both establishing goals and selecting alternatives for reaching them. Therefore, it first decides to provide meals, transpor- tation, and social activities. The task and contextual environments come into play in the second phase when resources are assembled, public approval obtained and . vi “ éu‘svg‘ I“... {or 4r r' I-.'.— A av- ~ a gran _-uA~J "4 V‘J *0. Ian‘ .4 tr”? 1"" ‘U 9: W. a n: C 1 fl \ ) ~I. ~i .1‘ J Cy : a rd Q» A S A: A 3 O O "1.. ~ 1! on ‘ .9 s x “In ~~hv +. t. e a a»: 50 a method of operation is determined. Environmentally Imposed Domain The Maniha-Perrow (1965) study of a Youth Commission illustrates the influence of domain consensus of an organ- ization, when the focal organization itself has not con- sciously staked out a transactional or contextual terri- tory in its environment. Thus, the establishment of do- main is essentially a social act often beyond the con- scious planning, control or even anticipation of the individual organization. Moreover, organizations in the transactional and contextual orbit of the focal agency often initiate its goal succession, its changing domain and its relative permanence. As Emery and Trist (1965) have pointed out, the sum total of an organiza- tional environment (i.e., the interaction of organiza- tions that are relevant to the focal organization, for example) may generate a "causal texture" independent of any single organization input or goal. James Thompson (1967) endorses this primacy of the aggressive or somewhat directive environment over the organization in stating that establishment of domain cannot be an arbitrary, unilateral action. He goes on to note that a domain becomes operational only if the organization's claims to domain are recognized by those who can provide the necessary support, i.e., the task environment components. . .u. 2. o. .4; w“ r. . . :. one-V-- v I new. " Au ’8 ca 4 . *VII 2» as .R‘ P ‘3‘ ( .0 «la AH— Irv :5. A «a p; u ‘\ n.u t}- .1 {v- «A In V-.es 1 it e ‘1-‘9 but, Tei‘dir l a v Ad NH nu +v t 0‘ ‘ at .e v a S no me, 6.. e. 9. UV. “be .rrfl. , C; 51 Interorganizational Mediation of Domain In facilitating interorganizational exchange, Litwak and Hylton's (1962) coordinating agencies serve a sup- portive or enabling function to domain consensus. These "agencies" are formal organizations whose maJor purpose is to order behavior between two or more other formal organizations. They develop and continue in existence as long as organizations are partially interdependent and aware of this interdependence, and as long as the interdependence can be defined in standardized units of action. These entities bear a structural and functional resemblance to Joint Programs, as defined by Aiken and Hage (1968). In operational terms, Levine and White (1961: 597) point out that the organizational domain in the health field, for example, refers to the claims that an organization stakes out for itself in terms of the disease covered, the population served, and the ser- vices rendered. The goals of the organization consti- tute its claim to future functions and to the elements required for these functions, whereas the present or actual functions carried out by the organization con- stitute de facto claims to these elements. Within the health agency system, domain consensus must exist to the extent that parts of the system will provide each agency with the elements necessary to attain its ends. When organizations' goals are accepted, domain consen- sus continues as long as the organization fulfills the 52 functions adJudged appropriate to its goals and adheres to accepted standards of quality. The Nature of the Individual Organization's Domain The capacity of the environment to provide needed support may be dispersed or concentrated; similarly, de- mand for that capacity may be concentrated or dispersed. If the organization's need is relatively unique, demand for the input is concentrated; if many other organizations have similar needs, the demand is dispersed. Further, under both situations, there may or may not be competi- tion. Similar distinctions can be made on the output side of the organization. The domain claimed by an organ- ization and recognized by its environment, then, deter- mines the points at which the organization is dependent, facing both constraints and contingencies. This concept of domain consensus can be separated from individual goals or motives, and also, it enables us to deal with Operational goals without inputing to the organization the human quality of motivation or the assumption of a group mind (Thompson, 1967: 27-29, 37-38). Environmental Context of Domain Consensus Braito, 22.21- (1972) agree with Thompson's premise that an organization may be highly committed to certain goals and means (the self-definition of domain), but unless support is received from relevant organizations in the environment (domain consensus), then the potential for favorable interorganizational exchanges is not 53 realized. In practical terms then, domain consensus lays down the organization's internal-external boundaries and the scope of its functions according to both the organi- zation's conceptions and the agreement of the organiza- tions in the transactional and contextual environment. Evan (1966) calls this environment the organizational set, and he includes input and output organizations as well as comparative and normative reference organizations -- interacting with the focal organization. Warren (1969), leaving domain consensus as defined already, extended the definition of domain. Suggesting that domain is a key variable in decision-making, he sees it as the organiza- tion's locus in the interorganizational network, includ- ing the access to necessary resources and the right to operate in a given geographical area. He felt that his definition was broader than Thompson's as it includes the elements necessary for an organization to maintain itself in an environment. Organizational Response to Domain Consensus Braito,'ep_al. (1972: 180) go on to state that domain and domain consensus are intimately associated with stability and change in an organization to the extent that they are involved in exchange relationships between organizations and are central to the decision- making framework. They cite Thompson and McEwen (1958), Litwak and Hylton (1962) and Hollister (1970) in explor- ing the conditions for interorganizational cooperation, 54 and they agree that domain consensus is a prerequisite for this cooperation. The relationship, then, implies the sharing of domains, the extension of domains or the control of domains, or some combination of these. They point out that structural properties internal to organi- zations have been associated with the organization's wil- lingness to participate in interorganizational relation- ships through the establishment of Joint Programs (Aiken and Hage, 1968). This involves the staking of new claims (domains) as well as the extension of claims (domains). Domain Consensus and Domain Dependency Since decision rationality is not achieved by largely powerless or dependent organizations, then, agencies stake out specific and possibly larger domains as a method of enlarging contextual_power and managing_dependenay (Thompson, 1967). Yet, as Thompson notes, organizations acguire dependence when they establish domains. This development is based on the new reality that there is an expanded task and contextual territory to maintain and protect; and secondly, that the domain consensus required for effective domain hinges on initial and continued sup- port from the task and contextual environments. Thus, the prior domain consensus essential for the coordinating mechanisms and resource exchange agreements creates dependency. Organizations may, however, trade on the fact that other organizations in their task environments also have problems of domain, and therefore, a gym. . .4.‘ A "Y‘:”:" ber-Go . Wflw‘ .UI.‘ () '(‘1 p) 14- (J 7 {D 1“ 55 they too face constraints and contingencies (Thompson, 1967). In the management of this interdependence, organ- izations tend to employ cooperative strategies (Thompson and McEwen, 1958). As Cyert and March (1963) conclude, organizations avoid having to anticipate environmental actions or shocks by arranging negotiated environments. Domain Dependency and Joint Programs An example of Domain Dependency and its possible translation into Joint Programs is the case of a young and large public agency with a high diversity of services. The agency possesses funds and a mandated role in the community but may perceive a compelling need for commu- nity consensus for its functions along with local access to potential clients and professional staff. The public agency may simultaneously attempt to confirm a measure of domain consensus for its functions and goals app gain access to clients and other local resources through Joint programs with older agencies in the community. A public multi-purpose agency such as model cities may fit this pattern. Another example is that of an innovative drug treat- ment process originating at the Federal level. Domain consensus is sought for the new approach to be integrated into existing agencies and efforts already combating drug abuse in the community. If a carefully developed and com- prehensive consensus is not developed prior to visible operation, the community of agencies would tend to a!‘ vv' '1”! (h 0.. Cu. .P '0. Q.‘ I 0»- ‘ P '1... 56 coalesce against the new program. Existing agency secur- ity is threatened by the new agency both because of com- petition for clients and because the innovative agency casts an adverse reflection on the methods currently utilized by local agencies. Therefore, domain consensus is an urgent need of the new agency. A way of managing the resulting dependency is by guaranteeing resources through Joint Programs. Domain Dependency, Resource Dependency and Joint Programs The Resource Dependency that often accompanies organ- izational innovation is sometimes related to Domain Dependency. The environmentally-located resources needed to implement the innovations are released to the organi- zation through domain consensus of relevant organizations in the environment. For example, the new public agency that is treatment-oriented may want to add auxiliary or ancillary services to support its innovations in client treatment. It may need the help of a local agency in terms of transportation or meals for clients. The Re- source Dependency is overcome through Joint agreements, and the action is facilitated by domain consensus regard- ing the public agency. By the same token, a private agency such as the YMCA may want to add vocational coun- seling to its recreational services for youth. The resource need for professional employment counselors can be overcome through coalescing with the local public employment service in a Joint Program. .P U.) 6.. (ll .1- '9 ‘A ‘v .A ‘v a! .1; 'I‘ t p 4. In I" 57 Specific Literature Review Part III - Organizational Dependency and Joint Programs Introduction Organizational pursuit of overall effectiveness, then, induces or results in Organizational Dependency. This dependency, whether in the form of domain or re— source dependence is posited as a corollary to organi- zational cooperation in the form of Joint Programs. External effectiveness, the sub-criterion relating to environmental adaptation, is directly associated with domain, domain consensus and Domain Dependency. The domain consensus described in the preceding section rep- resents both cause and effect as well as a Joint phenom- enon with Domain Dependency. That is, the social act required to secure inter-agency and environmental con- sensus for the functions and goals of the focal agency is triggered by an organizational perception of lacking environmental control and power over scarce and valued external resources. Thereupon, the domain consensus itself becomes a basis for Organizational Dependency -- i.e., the domain must be protected and defended, and reinforced periodically; it must also be sustained by a continuing agreement from environmental elements. Domain consensus, then, rests on the fragile supports of individual and collective agreements by other agencies and by institutions generally on the role and goals of 94-. 4 he? -F a» p};- vv ’0; ‘7‘ U. (D '11 L]: I" 58 the focal agency in the community service delivery scheme. Internal effectiveness, the sub-criterion relating to gpal achievement, is indirectly associated with domain consensus and dependency and is more immediately related to Resource Dependency, the second category of Organiza- tional Dependency. That is, internal operating needs create a need for scarce and valued resources from exter- nal sources. Innovations in technology, production and distribution put pressure on the agency to overcome the Resource Dependency. The agency successfully deals with the dependency and achieves its operational goals by'pppp. initiating and participating in Joint Programs and by establishing domain and domain consensus over its func- tions and goals. The domain consensus it seeks proves valuable as a guarantee to essential resources and envi- ronmental supports in the future, as a basis for addi- tional formalized agreements with other agencies for Joint service delivery, and as an established task and contextual environment in the future. Organizational Dependency Defined In this research, Organizational Dependency is de- fined as "agency director perceptions that efficacy in relation to organization decisions and outcomes tends to be external to organizational boundaries." This definition is based on the concept of whether decision control is predOminantly internal or external to the organization, and the locus of control is determined 7.. ‘3. c» w“ nli 59 by responses to twenty-four organizational decisions. The questions cover administrative, personnel, budget and operational decisions, and ask specifically for "persons, groups or things exerting the most influence over decisions." Examples of external sources of influ- ence that represent Organizational Dependency are the Board of the United Way, businessmen, clients, funding organizations, general public, labor groups and local government Officials and politicians. Internal sources of influence include the director of the agency, profes- sional staff, the agency's board or commission, and volunteers. Organizational Dependency; Theoretical Foundations Empirical research examining the concept of sources and the locus of control for organizational decisions has involved three main areas -- namely: studies in managerial autonomy, principally, within the organiza- tionli research in centralization of decision-making or the concentration of authority, a dimension of organiza- tion structure and process in which external influences 1 See Dill (1958); also, for laboratory testing of the distinction between environmental demands confronting a person and the person's interpretation of the demands and formuIEEion of them into tasks, see: H. Guetzkow and H.A. Simon, "The Impact of Certain Communication Nets Upon Organization and Performance in Task-Oriented Groups,” Management Science, Vol. 1 (1955), 233-250; and H. Guetzkow and W.R. Dill, "Factors in the Organi- zational Development of Task-Oriented Groups," Socie ometry, Vol. 20 (1957), 175-2011. 60 are measured for their effects on internal structure of activitiesL; and, centralization or organizational auton- pay pieces, which cut across organizational boundaries and have an external dimension as well as an internal. The third area of research listed here is relevant to inter-agency relations, and it furnishes a limited theo- retical background for organizational autonomy or depend- ency. Considering the ample amount of research directed toward environmental phenomena or the transactional or contextual environment vis-a-vis the organization, it is surprising that more work has not centered on the autonomy of the organization in its external environment. Beyond questions of autonomy, the patterns of organiza- tional decision-making in reaction to environmental con- tingencies, and the effects of the consequent decisions on environmental policies and relations of the organiza- tion, have received little attention. Organizational Dependency and "Cooptation" Selznick (1949) helped to open up the organizational issue of autonomy in a sweeping case study of organiza- tional adaptation pp and attempted fashioning a: the 1 See Simpson and Gulley (1962); Lawrence and Lorsch 1967, 1969): Pugh, et a1. (June, 1968); Pugh et al. March, 1969); Inkson, Pugh and Hickson (1970); Pugh Hickson, and Hinings (1970). In a separate conceptual stream, both Perrow (1961) and Lefton and Rosengren (1966) examined respectively the effects of prestige on organizational dependency and client influences on organizational structure and process. to, h.‘ .. I) I" (I) 'rl 61 task and contextual environment of a new organization. He explored organizational policies intended to guarantee friendly sub-environments, effectuate two-way communica- tions with organizational consumers, and generally, to come to terms with environmental uncertainties and con- straints -- both on an informal and formal basis. Selznick also treated the problem of participation, one peculiar to the public organization. Thus, the inJection into bureaucratic behavior of the democratic ideal of local participation meant that the public organization was voluntarily surrendering some autonomy and exclusive decision powers in order to achieve a longer term, more overbriding obJective for the organization -- that of goal achievement and environmental adaptation so that the organization could become increasingly viable and assume permanence. Selznick called this organizational strategy cooptation or the informal process of absorbing new elements into the leadership or policy-determining structure of an organization as a means of averting threats to its stability or existence. This activity also helped governmental agencies to penetrate the com- munity more rapidly and effectively, and to get programs Off the ground. This act of cooptation had disadvantageous conse- quences for the organization as well as the desired results. In pursuing this strategy, the organization shared decision control with environmental elements, 62 some of which were hostile to original organizational obJectives. Organizational Dependency evolved and the TVA altered policies in response to local pressures and groups. Thus, a cooperative strategy as opposed to a com- petitive one led to increased dependency. In the process, internal goal achievement and autonomy was sacrificed in order to achieve environmental adaptation. The question then becomes: Can the organization initiate an environ- mental policy that both achieves goals and helps adapt environmentally -- the two ingredients of overall organ- izational effectiveness. Formal Cooptation and Domain A key distinction that Selznick made in formulating the concept of cooptation was that of formal as opposed to informal cooptation. The cooptation discussed in the preceding sections of this paper exemplifies the informal kind in which no publicly visible environmental structure may be established but a sharing of power with environ- mental elements peep occur. A clear example of informal cooptation is the appOintment of a community leader to the policy-making board of a new public agency which he or his institution opposes. On the other hand, formal cooptation involves the public act of constituting advis- ory boards or committees in which community elements are identified publicly and structurally with a new program .5 Luv 0 a GA“? , Mir-Inb- .\ - SRO a: pic «i 63 but there is no real transfer of decisionppower to the environmental element. Thus, the act of formal cooptation may result in domain consensus at very little cost in decision auton- omy. Therefore, the organization may obtain domain con- sensus and possibly engage in Joint Programs without suffering loss of autonomy referred to in the preceding section. Theoretical Linkages Part I - The Domain Dependency IConsensus) Model The organizational obJective of Environmental Adap- tation as one of the two components of overall effective— ness prompts the organization to perceive interdependence as a basic environmental reality (Evan, 1966; Jacobs, 1974). This reality is based on increasing evidence that: -- Organizations are open systems in constant and significant interaction with the environ- ment (Katz and Kahn, 1966; Thompson, 1967; Osborn and Hunt, 1974). -- Organizational change is increasingly exter- nally induced, and therefore, organizational adaptability is increasingly a function of ability to learn and to perform according to changes in the environment (Terreberry, 1968). -- Turbulent environments are becoming more com- monplace, and therefore, a stable and unchang- ing organizational system is often dysfunc- tional (Emery and Trist, 1965). -- Successful pursuit of organizational goals is partially dependent upon environmental strat- egies, and further, that transactional nego- tiations with the environment are critical V fire" ~71 F'- L..\. Jts V1 CLELI' CC 5 wry- s veliv. ‘1 O h. $538336 0". ‘L. mac “(.6 n'z'ol A‘ tbldfi'qlna PTT=WS '7'- “fi-‘~.~C ‘ In as sm ‘ I :16: ion wi1 64 for organizational viability (Thompson and McEwen, 1958; Thompson, 1962 and 1967). Though these conclusions are based on conceptual analyses, their combined weight supports environmental adaptation as central to organizational survival and growth. Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) added empirical evidence that the particular pattern of differentiation and inte- gration of the parts of a large organizational system is associated with coping effectively with a given environ- ment. Moreover, Lorsch (1970) showed that effective organizations have established a fit between their inter- nal structures and the external environments. Reid (1964) points out that advantageous coordina- tion with other organizations is possible, especially when shared goals and complimentary resources produce a symbiotic relationship. Yet, Reid's conceptual work appeared to need underpinnings in theory and empirical proof. Emerson's (1962) and Blau's (1962) concepts of power and exchange coupled with the domain concept of Thompson (1967), Braito, ep_al. (1972), and Jacobs (1974), fleshed out the theoretical linkage. The organization, then, seeks power and control in its task and contextual environments. It seeks this power because of its awareness of transactional and institutional dependencies in its environments and because it knows that decision rationality is not achieved by largely powerless or dependent organiza- tions. Thus, the agency seeks power to offset its . A’ an“ " r '5 Loflllignk' 2:95, are our. effect the” N a ”1 if: 5‘. tiezert, 3% High";- ‘ uh, '1: I. 4;: ‘Ve, A, 55 dominant perception of interdependence and dependence with its environments. Power affords a rational method of handling what would otherwise be serious contingen- cies, and thus, the organization is freer to pursue its own effectiveness (Emerson, 1962; Blau, 1964; Jacobs, 1964). Interorganizational or environmental power is at- tained by the organization's establishing and extending its domain. The organization recognizes that effective inter-agency relations are related to sharing, extending and exercising some control over domains (Braito, ep_al., 1972). In the absence of structures of formal authority, a dominant coalition or allocating power, the individual organization seeks domain consensus in its task and con- textual environments. In seeking this consensual agree- ment for its domain claims, the organization evolves into a Domain Dependepey (Maniha and Perrow, 1965; Perrow, 1967; Thompson, 1967; and Braito, ep_ag,, 1972). The environmental agreement for a well-defined task and contextual territory that comprises domain consensus, then, is accompanied by a dependency on environmental elements for the continuation of the agreement. There- fore, in managing its dependency by more firmly estab- lishing and extending its task and contextual power through consensus, the organization acquires Domain Dependency. The focal organization may attempt to me- diate, control or reduce this dependency by sharing or A O AQA‘G" V ~ yyyb U-..-:. InOp‘ 4p ‘\ ‘OOUU "v" pu-O «A- . \thV—Ae, «Mug ?‘0" r‘ vv“. Vito H‘FVQW v- .14, We ..,.- “it“c ‘gr‘ \' Q ‘< c. ( :3 66 coopting task and contextual agents and institutions into decision processes (Selznick, 1949). A more likely outcome, however, is that the Domain Dependency is over- come through inter-agency coalitions (Thompson and McEwen, 1958J) Thus, though the operational result of domain con- sensus may be a new dependency, a result of both the consensus and the dependency may be an organizationally desirable outcome -- resource exchange and coalescing through formalized agreements such as Joint Programs. Levine and White (1961) concluded in their empiri- cal study of health and welfare organizations that domain consensus is a prerequisite for apy formal interorganiza- tional relations or negotiated environments. Litwak and Hylton (1966), in proposing coordinating agencies, con- firmed the need for inter-agency agreement and standard- ization of units of exchange. With this latter require- ment met, domain consensus and Domain Dependency lead to high exchanges in resources. As Litwak and Rothman (1970) conclude, the most efficient exchange linkage between organizations with high domain consensus would be formal agreements, namely Joint Programs. The Joint Programs then enable the organization to exploit symbiotic rela- tionships in its environments for program and service delivery. Program and service accomplishment beyond the capacity of individual agencies becomes feasible, slack resources are utilized and the organization suffers a " .1: -.' ’pl " Nd “VF“E‘ 5 36: day-anv- .vv ‘1»va . Ali TAJrO yu- UV56AV A). O. l M.5. 2C1: N 67 negligible loss in autonomy. In the process, it manages its dependency in a positive and creative way. A limitation in this pattern that culminates in Joint Program activity is that of the relative degree of Organizational Dependency. If the dependency is so great that the organization has neither valued resources to exchange nor other forms of power or influence to serve as leverage, then, Joint activity is unlikely. The final step in the Domain Dependency Model, then, is agency involvement in Joint Program activity. This model may apply to public agencies in particular. Thus, the domain consensus and dependency evolution may resemble the informal cooptation conceptualized by Selznick (1949). In this process, decision control is transferred from the organization to environmental ele- ments. Often, this shifting of influence beyond agency boundaries is not structurally visible. On the other hand, if the organization attains domain consensus with- out surrendering decision control, the result may approx- imate Selznick's formal cooptation. In this form of cooptation, the appearance of decision influence is transferred to environmental elements but not necessar- ily the substance. An example of this phenomenon is the community advisory board to an agency. The Domain Dependency predicted by the ”consensus" model at this point is measured on the basis of whether sources of influence for the key organizational decisions I 5,: ”war? an. 0““"' Te 4 IO ‘ 03H!" " ‘ ,.(,...a.L J- a . n: .A‘.h‘ : V0 UVgoA'V O 148 r O ewe. The”; .9 or .:‘~ 0' .‘TEEIJ ta zational 1 Ar chcv-264 ,. . V. fiv-~ O =e—r1cal‘ ‘ Rae“ EQ;Z t‘cr Q a I":- t v 1. .Q "ECG?” ‘\ i. sfl‘. ~‘ “\u‘snter ’ 68 are internal or external to agency boundaries. The hypothesis then relates this form of Organiza- tional Dependency to inter-agency cooperation in the form of Joint Programs.l Theoretical Linkages Part II - The Resource Dependency (Innovation)pModel The Resource Dependency or Innovation Model, an al- ternate organizational path leading to Joint Programs, is largely based on Aiken and Hage's theory of interorgani- zational relations in which inter-agency competition 222 cooperation are incorporated into the same model. In this empirically tested model, the intense competition or or- ganizctions prompts them to adopt cooperative modes such as Joint Programs. In pursuing goals for Internal Effectiveness pri- marily, the organization both differentiates and inte- grates its personnel and functions. It differentiates for purpose of task efficiency, because of the nature of the technology, because of increasing size and the heightened specialized skills required, and because of transactions with specialized segments of the environ- ments. On the other hand, the organization integrates personnel and functions in order to maintain the viability 1 See the succeeding section of this Chapter for the hypothesis. Component measures of Organizational De- pendency and Joint Programs are listed in Appendix B. v ‘_ " Ov- c :6 V"e “a. ." :8“:r U-‘ O v ‘6‘ I win“ ‘fi 6:..v’ .cA -'~. was c guy U. C l‘hcfi: a: Q "Laughe- b v "r in. “Tact-cryr ‘o-n -. '__ _ 0-01 "I. EUSLS '— V it’larg S ‘~-.-. "" r4 Clues a‘“ lln 1" ~‘fi re~ab “'4. v: we. , $3113 , fl Uck;‘“za‘ 69 of the system overall, in order to achieve unity of effort in meeting the composite demands of the external environ- ment, in order to control conflict, and in order to util- ize organizational resources optimally for over-riding organizational goals (March and Simon, 1958; Woodward, 1958 and 1970; Burns and Stalker, 1961; and Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). The generalized effects on the organization of the differentiation process are the presence of differing goals within the organization (by subsystem), specialized working styles and mental processes, differences in atti- tudes and behavior (by work group), varying formal report- ing relationships and control procedures, different reward criteria, differences in goal orientation and formality of structure, and distinct language and underlying value orientations. These factors are intimately related to subsystem adJustment to its relevant sub-environment. The integration process tends to lead to more centralized and hierarchical decision structures for the sake of unity and coordination, more "formalization" for the sake of continuity and consistency throughout the organ- ization, more emphasis on long term growth goals for the organization and system-wide values, and the socializing of individuals into an internalizing of organizational goals and the organizationally-defined means for reaching those goals. The integration process also raises aware- ness of environmental interdependence at the overall Y .r. t OnF.:: to w‘ I L a... + u c r L .1 I rc I I O O O I r n‘ t .- IV u. SIV rl S u..fi 1 AC A4.J .b :1 Irv Ti QU '1‘ ‘U :tt .2. ul MA. .sta nu vi Ni V” +V n H a. a v CU AV I,” e r Idh -c . AP. I s O» .n‘ C.- \Fu O .l ‘1‘ TN flit ‘1‘ 9‘ .20 “arces Sf"! 7O system-interface level rather than merely the sub-system level (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Argyris, 1964). In these countervailing processes, differentiation tends to prove a stronger and more sustained organiza- tional imperative on the basis of: l. the need for technical competence and special- ized skills at the subsystem level; 2. the rational pursuit of sub-goals over which the organization has considerable autonomy; 3. the press of specialized sub-environments in the transactional life of the organization; 4. the specialized roles required for advantage- ously receiving inputs and discharging outputs to environments; 5. in a situation involving stiff external compe- tition, the organization tends to differentiate externally in the first instance, and then internally; and 6. increasing professionalization, and the special- ists' relating to professional associations and counterparts in other organizations, as the organization grows and matures. (Eisenstadt, 1959; Thompson, 1962; and Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). Internal diversipy_becomes more pronounced as a result of these differentiating phenomena, and organiza- tion sybsystems begin to compete for resources from the central allocating unit of the organization. Separate identities and subsystem perceptions of distinct and dif- ferential interests promote a competition and conflict that is similar to that found interorganizationally among agencies with perceived overlap in input or output, task or contextual transactions, or most crucially, common sources of funds, prestige or other support mechanisms. a” 'r' ."V .‘l' :7'1r‘; vint‘llv » ‘ ‘ . I-.eCu . 'A Y J'/' .'U-‘ h ' l O." o \t ( \J 0) Ir» 71 The internal diversity is heightened even more as sub- systems respond to competitive and technical changes in their relevant sub-environment and as they attempt to enhance their bargaining position in securing scarce and valued resources both internally and externally (Thompson, 1962; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Yuchtman and Seashore, 1967; and Marcus, 1973). Organizational innovation evolves out of this inter- nal diversity as: 1. competition among organization subsystems for current and future budget and resource alloca- tions continues and becomes sharper; 2. subsystem identities and self~interests induce decisions in and for the subsystem itself; 3. the conflict between different occupations and interest groups as well as between different philosophical perspectives results in new ways of looking at organizational problems; 4. subsystem transactions with specialized task environments produce environmentally induced change through the subsystem itself rather than through the overall organization; 5. subsystems relate to clients and potential clients that they serve in a specialized way, and a consequent motivation to extend and broaden services because of related or more intensive needs uncovered often develops; 6. professionalization and professional activity neutralizes loyalty to and identification with the overall organization, and new ideas and concepts come into the organization through professional channels. (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Lefton and Rosengren, 1966; and Aiken and Hage, 1968). Resource Dependeney represents the price the organ- ization must pay in order to implement innovations. ‘. z 72 Yuchtman and Seashore's (1967: 878) effectiveness cri- teria of "bargaining position in obtaining scarce and valued resources" is a relevant portrayal of the depend- ency situation that the organization faces at this point. The greater the magnitude of the change or innovation, or the degree of change withon some specified period of time, the greater the amounts of resources that will be needed and the less likely that the normal sources will be sufficient (Aiken and Hage, 1968). In particular, the need from external sources of essential and non- substitutable resources in order to fuel the innovations stimulates an organizational perception of resource de- pendency (Jacobs, 1974). Resource exchange in the form of Joint Programs is an appealing organizational recourse at this point. That is, the creation of,Joint,_cooperative,perects with other organizations becomes appealing as a method of over- cominngesource Dependency and proceeding with the innova— papp§.(Aiken and Hage, 1968). Though the organization has a strain to maintain its autonomy and avoid inter- organizational constraints (Gouldner, 1959), it may well have a degree of organizational "slack" or surplus re- sources that it can exchange for essential and non- substitutable resources from its environments (Jacobs, 1974). As Bates and Bacon (1972) note, social exchange between elemental groups develops even granting an 73 interorganizational assumption of conflict and competi- tion rather than cooperation and mutual aid in the com- munity system of agencies. The assumption here is that the constituent parts of the community system are forced, through the nature of division of labor to depend upon one another. Since the environment is normally rich in potential resources for innovation (Wilson, 1966) and other organi- zations in the task and contextual environments also face resource deficiencies and dependencies (Thompson, 1967), strategies for gaining and guaranteeing needed resources into the future through Joint Programs is feasible and practical. Among the possible strategies of bargaining, cooptation, coalition, merger, or other medthods, the Joint Program is particularly appealing as it creates certainty, exchanges resources and facilitates programs and services through formalized agreements. Thus, organ- izational planning for goal achievement is made predicta- ble and specific. Therefore, as Aiken and Hage empirically confirmed among social service agencies, a dominant competitive mode in interorganizational relations incites agencies to adopt cooperative forms such as Joint Programs. More- over it is the competitive disadvantage of Resource De- pendency resulting from innovations that prompts the inter-agency Joint activity. 74 The competitive act of innovating to maintain or enhance market position, therefore, culminates in Joint Programs. This model may apply more to private agencies than to public because of the economics of scarcity and the need for growth to measure progress and effective- ness. The sharing of decision control associated with the Resource Dependency or "Innovation" Model is an immediate and practical decision of economic reality for the agency. In order to guarantee essential re- sources and to condition the environment for agency growth, Organizational Dependency based on resource need assumes the form of sharing decisions with envi- ronmental elements. In order to guarantee resources into the future and to formalize the guarantees, Depend- ency becomes associated with Joint Programs.1 The Hypothesis "Joint Program involvement by human service agen- cies in the community is associated with agency director perceptions of Organizational Dependency." 1 See the succeeding section of this Chapter for the hypothesis. Component measures of Organizational Dependency and Joint Programs are listed in Appendix CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND AGENCY CHARACTERISTICS Introduction This chapter consists of three maJor sections. Part I describes the survey locale in terms of its principal demographic characteristics. Then, the population of agencies is presented along with the survey scope and methods. Then, in turn, the data gathering method, the measurement components of the hypothesis, the statis- tical tools, the control and processing of the data and the research assumptions, are presented. Part II of the chapter covers operational defini- tions of the agencies. Then, the relative incidence of these attributes among the thirty-five agencies is por- trayed in a series of tables. As a result, a substantial understanding of agency profiles is afforded prler to analysis of the hypothesis. The third and final part of the chapter is composed of a description and analysis of the relationship of agency characteristics to Organizatihnal Dependency. A knowledge of the patterns that exist between agency at- tributes and agency director perceptions of Dependency 75 u) lv-l '- n no 76 also is helpful in the data analysis. Prior awareness of demographic and operational modes associated with this Dependency assists in setting the stage for the hypothesis. Further, it creates a fuller understanding of conditions and possible rationales for agency Depend- ency. Part I - Methodology The Community: Demographics Kalamazoo, Michigan, the site of the survey that has generated the data analyzed here, is a commercial, industrial and educational center located in southern Michigan. The city is notable for its institutions of higher learning -- Western Michigan University, Kalama- zoo College, and Kalamazoo County Community College -- and for the manufacturing and research facilities of the UpJohn Parmaceutical Company. General Motors Corpora- tion and the Brown Paper Company also have large plants in the community. Beyond these institutions, the city is at the core of a growing commercial, trade and manu- facturing area which ranks fifth in population among Michigan metropolitan areas. Kalamazoo County, the area serviced by the human service agencies covered in the survey, has a population of approximately 225,000. This area grew by 18.8% in the 1960 to 1970 decade, compared with a national growth rate of 13.3%. The pattern within this overall trend 77 resembled the nation in the following respects: substan- tial growth occurred in the suburban area surrounding the city; population mobility increased; the 15-24 year age group had the highest rate of growth; the group under five years of age declined; the median age declined even though the 65 years of age and older group increased; and finally, the non-white population increased at a faster rate than the total population (i.e., the increase in the non-white population was 74.8% in the Kalamazoo SMSA [Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area7, an area co- terminmmswith the county). In 1970, non-whites comprised 5.3% of the county population and 10.6% of the city popu- lation, or approximately 12,000 persons.1 The Communipy: Housing and Income Statistics In Kalamazoo as in the United States, the growth rate of housing exceeded that of the population. In Kalamazoo County, renter-occupied housing increased at a dramatically faster rate (44%) than did owner-occupied housing (17%), yet in the United States as a whole, owner-occupied housing increased at a greater rate (22%) than did renter-occupied (17%). A partial explanation 1 Statistics were obtained from a March, 1973, publica- tion of W. E. UpJohn Institute for Employment Research, titled, "Selected Population, Housing, and Economic Characteristics in Kalamazoo County, by Tracts: 1960- 1970." By Phyllis R. Buskirk and Katherine H. Ford. .IFA Rm. Inw- 1.5.. a-Aq V'U lfl“ «- .I‘ V. .J‘ .._ A CT 78 for this wide difference in growth from the country as a whole is Kalamazoo's traditionally high incidence of owner-occupied housing. Seventy-two percent of all occupied units in the Kalamazoo SMSA in 1970 were owner- occupied while 63% were owner-occupied for the United States. In 1969, median annual income for Kalamazoo metro- politan area families exceeded the nationwide average: i.e., $11,037 compared with $9,590. Comparative rates of unemployment based on census data show Kalamazoo County with a 1970 rate slightly higher than that of the country generally (4.7% compared with 4.4%). The increasing proportion of black residents within the city and the higher incidence of unemployment among blacks reflects an incipient pattern in medium-sized cities that has already been experienced in the large metropolitan areas. However, the difficulties and the breakdown in social service delivery that have character- ized many of the largest cities may be averted or amelior- ated if service delivery systems in cities such as Kalama- zoo are better planned, executed and evaluated. Thus, the target population for this research is composed of the existing complex of organizations that are delivering human or social services in Kalamazoo. The Target Population All human service agencies operating in the Kalama- zoo area and fitting the definitional criteria were Hf .\ 8" V'- 4! ‘. II' 111 ‘i n, (7) .4 M ‘1) n, [(1) (I? 79 covered in the survey. The thirty-five agencies included public and private agencies that were operating locally in the areas of health, welfare, employment services, legal assistance, physical and mental rehabilitation, counseling, youth services, recreation, disaster relief, drug and alcohol abuse, community centers, and referral services (See Table l for Agency names and categories). F The criteria for inclusion in the survey included: I formal organizational status; task orientation, with the delivery of a minimum of one social service as its pr;- ‘pary function; the services may be on an individual or group level; a full-time staff of at least two persons; a minimum budget of $10,000 annually; and a local board or governing body (if a private agency). The population was comprised of fifteen public and twenty predominantly private agencies. Six of the public agencies represented components of parent agencies, yet they were sufficiently independent in local identity, authority and operational mode to be surveyed and evalu- ated separately.l Survey Approach and Field Method United Way of Kalamazoo was approached and agreed to cooperate with and support a survey of local human service agencies. A maJority of the agencies were private .— 1 See Part II of this Chapter and Appendix A (Glossary of Key Terms) for additional background and eXplanation of definitions. = e.L‘ .fibtu Jun AL \\ is. M... Q“ d 8O Table l. -- Human service agencies; Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1974; by Auspices. Private:1 Public:2 Public-Component: American Red Cross Big Brothers of Greater Kalamazoo, Inc. Boys' Club, Inc. Boy Scouts of America Catholic Social Services Comstock Community Center Constance Brown Hearing and Speech Center Douglass Community Association Family and Children's Services Glowing Embers Girl Scout Council Goodwill Industries of Southwestern Michigan, Inc. St. Agnes Foundling Home Salvation Army Senior Services, Inc. Vicksburg Community Center Visiting Nurse Association YMCA YWCA Legal Aid Bureau, Inc. Planned Parenthood Association Social Security Administration Kalamazoo County Department of Social Services Michigan Employment Security Commission Kalamazoo County Cooperative Extension Service Vocational Rehabilitation Services Kalamazoo County Health Department Kalamazoo Alcoholism and Addiction Council Kalamazoo County Community Mental Health Board Kalamazoo Substance Abuse Board McKercher Rehabilitation Center, Inc. Gryphon Place UpJohn (William) DeLano Memorial Clinic Child Guidance Clinic Kalamazoo Drug Abuse Program/Potter Program Kalamazoo Consultation Center 1 See page 81. See page 81. I’ll qlé ttt 81 l A number of these agencies receive public funds, yet they are predominantly private and voluntary in iden- tity, administration, and control. All of them with the single exception of the "Planned Parenthood Asso- ciation are United Way agencies. 2 One public agency, Kalamazoo County Community Action Program, Inc., went out of existence during the initial phase of the survey in March, 1974. Therefore, it is not listed. and members of the United Way recipient group. An inter- disciplinary research team from the Department of Soci- ology, Michigan State University, already had completed a similar survey in Lansing, Michigan. Additional sur- veys were planned for other middle size cities in Michi- gan. The United Way board, administration and staff shared the interest of the Michigan State University researchers in the increased coordination of local planning, delivery and evaluation of human services. Therefore, the focus of the survey was on inter-agency communication, problems in inter-agency coordination of programs, inter-agency networks, decision-making and influence patterns both internally and externally, public-private agency inter- action and cooperation, and finally, agency data and characteristics -- demographics, budgets, personnel, client profiles and histories. Five local women were recruited and trained as interviewers following approval for the implementation ‘fi 4.. K‘u 3!} Th+ \((u' u. U I; . "All 82 of the survey by the United Way board and staff. The interviewers were middle aged women with families who generally divided their time between home, professional work and volunteer activities in the community. The executive director of United Way sent letters to member agencies prior to any research team or inter- viewer contact with them. The letter described the sur- vey purpose and asked for their cooperation. The re- search director then wrote a follow-up letter with a more explicit description of the research purpose, survey con- tent and techniques, and confidentiality of the survey information, and the planned telephone call within a week for an appointment. All interviews were completed within a three-week period in the Spring of 1974, and the entire population of thirty-five agencies completed the the questionnaires. Survey Purpose The unifying purpose and the immediate obJective of the research was to specify and measure the conditions under which both public and private agencies coordinate or integrate their resources into a community delivery system. In the process of learning about the overall delivery scheme, considerable information is generated on agency servicing decisions and priorities and the interaction of the entire network of agencies. A more ultimate goal of this survey research, then, is to pro- vide planners with helpful, realistic data on motivations 83 and rationales for individual agency decisions on their corporate role in the community. Survey Design and Content The survey instrument was constructed to measure attributes common to most service agencies and was thus intended to yield comparative organizational data. Yet, at the same time, it was designed to be specific and diverse enough for relevant and precise responses from a variety of agencies. Therefore, in surveying agency characteristics and interaction processes, comparative variables are utilized that represent internal, external or interorganizational phenomena. The format is obJec- tively-oriented and it relies principally on factual ob- servations and agency history and activity as perceived by the director of the agency. The survey instrument was divided into three dis- tinct parts and each of these parts was administered in a different way. Part I involved an hour-long private interview with the agency director. The information elicited included: a listing of the agency's maJor programs and services; the network of existing inter-agency relation- ships; Joint (inter-agency) programs and their char- acteristics; preferences for public or private agencies in the delivery of specified services; and, -- the agency director's professional background and community involvement. Part II was a self-administered section of the sur- vey that the interviewer left with the agency director. 84 The director was instructed to fill it in within a few days and to return it by mail. Part II covered: -- agency service delivery difficulties and their relative importance; -- inter-agency areas of concern; -- agency support for Joint planning, integration or merger; -- internal and external influences on agency decisions; -- conflict areas within the agency board; -- service areas requiring more inter-agency cooperation and coordination; -- agency ability to obtain support from various persons, groups and things toward inter- agency coordination; and -- United Way areas of assistance to the agency. In this part as in Part I, five choices were specified whenever the questions referred to degree of agreement (e.g., very great extent to no extent; very great prob- lem to no problem) or to choices from a list of organi- zations, needs, resources or community elements. Part III, a section that could be completed by the agency director with the help of the personnel or finan- cial manager, covered agency personnel, client and finan- cial data. Specifically, the agency was asked to fur- nish: the number of staff and volunteers; a client pro- file along with the number serviced; referral statistics; the diversity or similarity of clients in age, sex, race and income; the budget; and funding sources. The specific sections of the survey that were util- ized in this dissertation for the measurement of the hypothesis were: -- Joint (inter-agency) Programs and their char- acteristics, in Part I; and Ah. I. i . p i :- AOL — .0 on.» 'f hi 85 -- internal and external influences on agency decisions, in Part II (representing Organ- izational Dependency). Measure: Organizational Dependency Organizational Dependency, the proposed correlate to Joint programs, is measured in the survey instrument by a series of twenty-five questions on sources of influence for the principal agency decisions (See Appendix B). r. The question format is worded: ”Which of the five per- E sons, groups or things (on an attached list) exert the ‘ most influence over decisions about each of the follow- ing?" Included among the areas covered are personnel, programs, administrative and procedural decisions. Deci- sion areas utilized represented a synthesis and extension of the Pugh, ep_al. (1968) centralization measures, the Inkson, ep_al. (1970) lack of organizational autonomy questions, and the Negandhi-Reimann (1973) decentraliza- l £222 factors. For each of the twenty-five decisions, the respond- ent selects the five top choices from a list of persons, groups or things. The list contains sources of influence on decisions that are either external or internal to organizational boundaries (Table 2). The number of SE? ternal sources of influence listed in comparison with the overall total of both internal and external sources, 1 See Appendix B for the survey format and questions relating to Organizational Dependency or external decision control.” 86 measures the organization's relative dependency. Agencies are dichotomized between relatively high and low depend- ency in measuring the correlations for the hypothesis. The median agency is used as the dividing line. Components of Organizational Dependency Both Domain and Resource Dependeney are measured by the series of ”source of influence” questions. For exam- ple, survey questions include: decisions to create, expand or eliminate services; decisions to hire or fire personnel, classify Jobs, fix salaries, create new posi- tions or make promotions; decisions to formulate rules and regulations, write proposals for funding, plan future levels of operation; and decisions to purchase equipment and determine the location of facilities. These decision questions measure the Domain Dependency involved in guar- anteeing current and future functions and goals for the focal agency through the sharing of decisions with rele- vant environmental agents. At the same time, the decision questions measure Resource Dependency. This form of Dependency may represent pressures for resources due to innovation or expansion. Also, the agency's protection and extension of its Domain often creates a Resource Dependency. Though these two forms of Dependency have separate conceptual origins and though they tend to make variable contributions to Organizational Dependency over- all, they are integrated in the survey questions (Appen- dix B). fi- * ‘ Table 2. - Persons, Groups and Things Representing Sources of Influence for Organizational Decisions; Sub- Divided According to Whether Decision Control is Principally Interpal or External to Organi- zational Boundaries. INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL SOURCES OF INFLUENCE FOR ORGANIZATIONAL DECISIONS Internal External 1 Board or Commission of 2 Board of Greater Kala- your agency mazoo United Way 16 President/Chairman of 3 Businessmen Board/Commission of this agency 18 Professional staff in 4 Clients this agency 24 Upper level staff in 5 Directors of other this agency agencies 25 Lower level staff in 6 Funding organizations this agency 26 Volunteers General public 27 You, yourself 8 Labor groups 9 Local governmental of- ficials and politi- cians 10 Local, state or federal laws 11 Minority groups 13 Need for new or addi- tional services 19 Professionals employed by other agencies 20 Religious groups or clergy 88 Table 2. (continued) 22 Staff of Greater Kala- mazoo United Way 23 Staff of other agencies and organizations 28 State or federal gov- ernmental officials or politicians ’1‘ 1 See Appendix B for the survey format for this section. Measure: Joint Program Involvement Joint Program involvement, the correlate of Organi- zational Dependency, is measured by the relative frequency initiation and intensity of Joint Programs.1 The concept and operational nature of Joint Programs are based on the Reid (1964) formulation of levels of coordination, the Levine, Paul and White (1963) study, and the Aiken and Hage (1968) empirical research on sixteen health and welfare agencies. Reid distinguishes three levels of inter-agency cooperation. The first two levels represent ad hoc or systematic page coordination. The third level, program coordination, represents a more extensive and complex inter-agency exchange. This third level involves Joint 1 See Appendix B for the format and specific questions relating to Joint Programs. 89 agency programs which often require formal agreements, more valuable resources and a greater commitment by the agency. Reid fails to specify in more precise or in operational terms the crucial differences and the com- ponents relating to each of these levels. Yet, the third level does serve as a helpful conceptual basis for the Joint Programs utilized in this dissertation. The Levine, Paul and White study proposed that some forms of organizational exchanges involve the Sharing of clients, funds and staff in order to pursue common inter- agency obJectives. Aiken and Hage adopt the more formalized program coordination and resource integration for common obJec- .p;ye§ cited by Reid and Levine, ep_al. They also care- fully distinguish the Joint Program from the Joint organ- ization. As a result of these conceptual and empirical treatments, Joint Programs are defined here as: -- a formalized integration of resources between two or more organizations for the purpose of Jointly delivering programs or services (See Appendix A for the operational defini- tion). Components of Joint Program Involvement The first component, Joint Program frequeney, is measured on the basis of relatively high agency frequency of Joint Programs (from two to six) versus relatively low frequency (either zero or one). The second component, Joint Program Initiation, is measured on the basis of relatively high initiation of 90 Joint Programs versus low. The ratio of Joint Programs initiated to the total in which the agency is involved is the basis for the measurement of this component. The third component, Joint Program intensity, is determined on the basis of relatively high commitment to Joint Programs versus low. The degree of commitment or intensity is measured by a point scale of seven Joint Program characteristics (Table 3). Then agencies are dichotomized into relatively high versus low intensity for statistical analysis in a 2 x 2 table format. The higher point range accorded the "number of re- sources contributed," the only characteristic listed in Table 3 that exceeds one point per Joint Program, is based on two factors. Firstly, resources represent the strongest rationale and the basic elements of value ex- changed or shared in the Joint Program context. Secondly, as a result of the foregoing, one to seven resources may be associated with each Joint program -- namely: staff; clients; volunteers; supervision; facilities; auxiliary services; and institutional support. The Key Informants: Agency Directors The unit of analysis for this research is the organ- ization itself rather than phenomena or processes at the individual, group or departmental levels within the organ- ization. Two methods are used in gathering data. Char- acteristics such as age, size, professionalization, ser- vice diversity and mode of work are obtained through a 91 Table 3. - Joint Program Intensity Index. The Intensity of Agency COmmitment to JOint Programs; Measured by Seven Component Characteristics and Factors. Number of Resources Contributed: Organizational Commit- ment of Money: Joint Program Granted Decision Autonomy: Joint Program Has a Dis- tinct Name or Title: Joint Program Was Not Mandated: Joint Program Duration Exceeds One Year: Joint Program Has a Formal Contract: Point Range Possible per Joint Program <1—7) (0-1) (0-1) (0-1) (0-1) (0-1) (0-1) (1-13) Point Range Possible Per Agencyl (1-42) (0-6) (0-6) (0-6) (0-6) (0-6) (0-6) (1-78) 1 One to six Joint Programs. 92 combination of direct observation, personal interviews with agency officials, published documents, and agency records. The second method is that of the key informant, and this particular method is utilized in gathering the data relating directly to the hypothesis. As Heydebrand (1973) points out, the assumption in organizational research is that key informants have fac- tual knowledge about their organizations asvmfll.as access to key information by virtue of their positions. At the same time, care must be taken that the informant does not venture beyond individual knowledge and competencies into unsupported Judgments and opinions. In this research, the agency director is the key informant for all response items. The agencies as well as the community locale are sufficiently small that the director has a comprehensive knowledge both of his own agency and of the rest of the human service agencies in the community. At the same time, the decision position of the agency director at the top boundary of the organ- ization makes him uniquely qualified among agency person- nel to perceive both internal and external influences on decisions. Thus, survey response items fall within the knowledge and possibly but not necessarily within the Jurisdiction of the agency director. The distinction between knowledge and perceptions beyond the director's Jurisdiction as opposed to within his Jurisdiction is an important one. However, regardless of Jurisdiction, 93 the perceptions of the agency director are a mediating or intervening factor that conditions agency interpre- tation of internal and external stimuli. Percgptions as an InterveninggVariable Both Dill (1958) and Negandhi and Reimann (1973) point out that the impact of the task environment on organizational structure and functioning is not direct but is mediated by the perception of decision-makers. Thus, a realistic assessment of agency perceptions and activities, and their prediction, involves the percep- tions and interpretations of the agency director as the top decision-maker within the organization. If data were obtained by documentation or observation alone, the per- ceptions of the key administrator of the agency would not be utilized. In that event, the data gathering method would be inconsistent with the purpose of the hypothesis. Specifically, the Organizational Dependency would not be measured on the basis of the key informant's perceptions; rather, the measurement would be based on obJective ob- servation from outside the situation. Since the hypothe- sis associates agency director perceptions of dependency with Joint programs, explicit emphasis has to be placed on perception as an intervening and mediating variable between environmental stimuli and agency responses. The Statistical Test Because of the small size of the agency population and the fact that most of the data are in either nominal 94 or ordinal form, appropriate statistical tests for measure- ment of the hypothesis are relatively limited. Moreover, both the nature of the research problem and the small pop- ulation made it essential to collapse the data into four- fold (2 x 2) tables for bi-variate analysis. The use of these dichotomous tables insures that there are minimum cell sizes for individual variables. At the same time, complexities of analysis are avoided that tend to go beyond the intended preciseness and refinement of the data. For some of the ordinal data, the median is util- ized for division of the agencies into a bi-variate dis- tribution. When two-way divisions are made that depart from the median, the rationale is eXplained.l Parametric assumptions and more powerful statistical tests, then, are not in order. Since the dissertation is based on a case study, statistical inference also is in- appropriate. Thus, the empirical study of human service agencies in one city does not generate inferences con- cerning inter-agency relations in other cities.= Essen- tially, the research and statistics are descriptive and purport to lay out a profile of inter-agency relations in one particular community. What statistical test is appropriate for these data, then? Tests for statistical independence such as Delta or Chi Square are insufficient. A standardized strength 1 See Part II of this Chapter. 95 of association coefficient is required, and Delta is un- duly sensitive to sample size and it has no meaningful upper limits. For example, if you double the sample size, you double the value of Delta. Four measures may be appropriate for determining the strength or degree of association for two-variable rela- tionships: The Percentage Difference; Gamma; Contingency Tables; and Yule's Q. Percentage Difference or the use of percentage tables to describe the magnitude of a correlation has the obvious advantage of being intelligible to the non-professional analyst. In addition, the reader can understand and cal- culate the raw figures from which the percentages are derived. On the other hand, this statistical method placks a natural upper limit (as it would require two "zero" cells, a rare and unrealistic case) and the value of the percentage difference can be affected by manipu- lating the marginals. Gamma is appropriate for larger tables and it yields finer distinctions in the data. Further, it uses more information in the data, it is more sensitive to the relationship's nature and direction at the extremes, and it generates more conservative coefficients. Dis- advantages of Gamma are that all variables tested must be ordinal, and the use of larger and more complicated tables and calculations often involves excessive arbitrary decisions on data categories and refinements beyond the 96 nature and purpose of the research design and data. Contingency tables are associated with analysis of nominal variables, and they are also appropriate for larger tables. Often, the statistical question involves whether row probabilities vary with or are contingent upon columns. However, because these tables may depart from chance in a variety of ways -- since there are mul- tiple deltas -- it is difficult to find an overall sum- mary of the degree of departure from chance. In addition, although one can understand what is happening in individ- ual cells, there is no satisfactory way to state the degree of association in the overall table. Yule's Q has the advantages over Percentage Differ- ence and Contingency tests of meaningful upper and lower limits to the coefficient -- i.e., -l.OO to +1.00 -- and it is resistant to artificial manipulation of marginals. In contrast to Delta it is insensitive to sample size, and yields a standardized and readily understood coeffi- cient. Though the Gamma test is more adaptable to larger tables and more precise analysis, it is inappropriate for bi-variate analysis that involves both nominal and ordi- nal variables. Moreover, when a coefficient is sensitive to the refinement or coarseness of the groupings, all variables tested should have the same number of categor- ies and similar marginal frequencies. Otherwise, two coefficients may differ in magnitude merely because of the category structure, not because of differences in 97 the strength of association (Davis, l971). Thus, Yule's Q emerges as an efficient test for four- fold tables of both nominal and ordinal data. This unam- biguous and standardized strength of correlation test fits the relative simplicity of the data. At the same time, artificial sub-dimensions of the data categories are kept to a minimum. It is easy both to compute and to understand. There are only two working parts, and the Q value equals zero (.00) when the two variables are independent and it approaches $9.00 when the variables are strongly correlated, either positively or negatively. An example may help to clarify further the meaning of a Q value: A Yule's Q of +0.75 indicates a 75% better than chance expectation that a positive correlation exists between the two variables under study. The limitations of the Yule's Q involve minimum cell values and a minimum sample or population size depending on the balance in the marginal distributions. For the former the expected cell sizes must equal five or more; for the latter, the following marginal distributions and the number of cases indicate acceptable limits: -- 25 cases - Minimum distributions of 50:50 by -- 31 cases - Migimfigsdistributions of 60:40 by -- 33 cases - Miggmfiggdistributions of 50:50 by 70:30. The measurement both of the characteristics and of the hypothesized relationships in the dissertation fall 98 within these methodology limits. Since all relationships are arranged on a bi-variate basis, the Yule's Q is utilized for all measurements of the variables. Analytical Tools In the next section of this chapter, the operational definitions of agency characteristics are given along with their rationales and examples of each. Then, cor- relations among agency characteristics and their relative incidence are presented. Finally, agengygprofiles are constructed and analyzed that reflect the frequency and the various combinations of auspices, age, size, service diversity, staff professionalism and mode of work. The final section of the chapter covers the relation- ship of these agency characteristics to Organizational Dependency. This information creates an understanding of patterns and uniformities between these variables prior to analysis of the hypothesis. Further sub-divisions of the bi-variate distribu- tions are impossible because of small cell frequencies. Therefore, additional test variables could not be inte- grated into the tables for the purpose of determining the moderating or intervening influence of other var- iables. For this reason, agency profiles are developed ‘Which supplement and add depth to the Q tables measuring ‘the hypothesis. These profiles reveal the patterns of ciemographic and operational characteristics associated 99 with Organizational Dependency and the frequency, initia- tion and intensity of Joint Program involvement. Since the profiles are composed of characteristics common to most human service agencies, replication is possible, and the utility of this study for future research in inter-agency relations is enhanced. Data Control and Processing A data flow and processing system was established in advance of the field work, including: &- a coding convention; -- a complete list of the variables and response choices, arranged and numbered according to standard IBM card columns; codebook; system of internal checks and verification of all information for accuracy and consis- tency (e.g., two persons verify and check all work); and —- a system of internal security to protect the data. I I A? 93 A pre-test completed in an earlier phase of the research both in the Lansing and Kalamazoo areas helped to elimi- nate survey ambiguities. The pre-survey letters and the cover instructions on the survey forms assured the respondent complete con- fidentiality and eXplained that agency as well as indi- vidual names would not be used. The results would be furnished to respondents. For the most part, interviewers and respondents mailed in the three survey sections, and follow-up tele- phone calls within the survey month secured the balance of them. Thus, data were available for analysis from 100 all agencies on the list. After coding and verification, all data were keypunched and verified a final time. Programs were then prepared for processing through the computer. Data contained in this analysis were also processed manually both as an additional internal check and for flexibility and convenience of analysis. Assumptions A summary of the assumptions inherent in this par- ticular research is helpful in determining the value and relevance of the empirical data and its interpretation. Principal assumptions are the following: 1. The research design dictates that the size of the city or metropolitan area be from small to medium size, or up to approximately 250,000 in population. This limitation is based on the survey premise that the agency directors interviewed are personally famil- iar with the population of human service agencies in the community, that they are professionally familiar with the functions offithese agencies, and that they administer agencies that are relatively small by bureaucratic standards (i.e., the agencies surveyed have less than 100 employees). 2. The hypothesis predicts relatively short-term phenomena more than long term (i.e., under five years principally); therefore, for exam- ple, deeper structural changes in the organi- zation are not considered. 3. The human service agencies from which the data are gathered are open systems; therefore, extensive interaction with the task and con- textual environments is possible, and at least minimally, there is an organizationally recognized interdependence with the environ- ment. 101 4. The organization itself is an identifiable and comparative unit of analysis. There- fore, it is useful and valid to analyze in terms of organizational-level phenomena as opposed to individual, group, or depart- mental level patterns. 5. The purpose and criterion assumed for the organization in the research is Organiza- tional Effectiveness rather than societal good, the public good, the good of the human services profession, the good of the personnel involved, or efficiency. 6. The city and locale serving as the data base for this research are generally typical of medium-sized (approximately 50,000 to 250,000 population) metropolitan areas in northeast United States. However, this inter-city comparability refers to overall demographic characteristics (for example: age, sex and race breakdowns, income and housing patterns), rather than to the pat- terns and characteristics of human service agencies. 7. In conception and design, this research is a case study of human service agencies in a particular city. Therefore, inferences about agencies in other cities are inappro- priate. Part II - Demographic andpgperational Characteristics Introduction Prior to analysis of the data connected with the hypothesis, it is helpful to examine agency character- istics and their relationships. An understanding of these patterns increases the value and defines more pre- cisely the practical implications of the data. In addi- tion, a fuller awareness of agency identity and attributes also confirms the limitations and uncertainties of data applications. Therefore, this section begins with 102 definitions of agency attributes along with examples. Then, relationships among the characteristics are pre- sented and agency profiles are developed that portray the integration of these characteristics in the various types of agencies. The question of public versus private agency status is analyzed more exhaustively than are other organizational characteristics. This emphasis is responsive to the heightened importance of auspices with the advent of revenue sharing, increased pooling of public and private funding at the local level, and sharper competition be- tween public and private sectors for local programs and clients. Definitions - Demographic Characteristics Auspices - Public: Federal, state or local agency, and thus is publicly identified, admin- istered and controlled. Private: Predominantly private or voluntary in identity, administration and control. (Often, public funding is involved, but it is not crit- ical to continued agency existence.) Age - Old: Pre-l964, or over 10 years old Young: 1964 to 1974 Size - Large: 23 or more, full time equivalent (3 way) paid employees Medium: 10 to 22, full time equivalent paid employees Small: 3 to 9, full time equivalent paid employees Size ‘(fiay ) - Large: Small: 103 17 or more, full time equivalent paid employees Less than 17, full time equivalent paid employees Definitions - Operational Characteristics Service Diversigy Staff Profgssionaligm - High: - High: Low: Mode of Work - Treatment: Apspices Low: Distribu- tive: Multi-purpose agency with a minimum of four direct special- ized services Uni-purpose agency with less than four direct, specialized ser- vices 50% or more professional employ- ees in the agency. alism based on the concept that formal and specialized educa- tion or training is required to fill the position Less than 50% of the employees are defined as professionals Direct, specialized service is rendered by personnel within the agency; the client satisfies a need or aleviates a problem through the intervention of agency specialists Facilitating or referral ser- vice is rendered by the agency; clients come to the agency for information, re- ferral, and auxiliary or ancillary service including transportation, day care, community resource counsel- ing or information, access to treatment facilities or personnel, and appointments. Table l in the preceding section lists the popula- tion of human service agencies in the Kalamazoo area. Profession- 104 They are subdivided according to public or private aus- pices. Since the maJority of private agencies receive public funds either directly or indirectly, it is in- creasingly difficult to categorize them as purely pri- vate. Predominantly private or voluntary identity, administration and control are appropriate indicators of non-public status, and this criterion is the basis for the distinction in this study. On the other hand, the public agencies listed are entirely public or gov- ernmental in character and support. Whether the pre- dominant identity, administration and control are Fed- eral, regional, state or local, the sponsorship is still public. Public agencies range from Federally-mandated and administered agencies to state or local agencies. The situations include: 1. Social Security Administration, a Federally administered program based on a legisla- tive mandate, and involving servicing functions prescribed by law; 2. The local offices of the Michigan Employ- ment Security Commission and the County Cooperative Extension Services. Based on Federal legislation and financing, these agencies are administered by the state; 3. The Community Health Board, the County Department of Social Services, and the County Health Department. They are administered by state and county, but in recent years, have received consid- erable program funding from the Federal government. 105 In addition, there is a separate category of public agencies designated as components.1 These public compo- nents are funded by parent or Sponsoring public agencies for specialized services in the community. For example, services may involve treatment and counseling for spe- cific health or social disabilities. An example of a component is a residential center or "halfway house” for ex-drug users. Financed and administered by the County Mental Health Board, this center has its own identity, supervision and staff. The Board handles policy deci- sions; the resident supervisor handles day-to-day oper- ations. The private or voluntary agencies also include a variety of situations. For example: 1. Local affiliates of national organizations with identity, administration and con- trol predominantely at the national level, e.g., American Red Cross; 2. Local servicing or membership units of national or international organizations, with identity, administration and con- trol split between local and higher level units, e.g., YMCA, YWCA, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts; 3. Locally identified and administered units, with some budget control from outside the community, e.g., Salvation Army, Good Will Industries, Catholic Social Services, Community Centers; 4. Local operation in terms of identity, administration and both budget and decision control3-e.g., Legal Aid Bureau, Visiting Nurses Association. 1 See Appendix A (Glossary of Key Terms) for a more com- prehensive definition. 106 All of the private agencies with the single excep- tion of the Planned Parenthood Association are recipi- ents of United Way funds. The characteristics distin- guishing these agencies from public, therefore, are that identipy, administration and decision control are largely private. Though budget control is often shared with gov- ernment, the agency retains a residue of voluntary and non-public financial support. More crucially, Egg .agenpy would remain in existence if public support was withdrawn. This latter criterion is a valid ultimate indicator of an essentially private status. Tables 4 and 5 relate auspices to size. Public agencies are substantially larger than private, and the correlation between public status and size grows when medium-size agencies are omitted. Thus, seven of eleven agencies with 23 or more employees are public while only three of thirteen have fewer than ten employees. On the other hand, one-half of the twenty private agencies have less than ten employees. The small size of private agencies is doubtless related to a distributive mode of work. Many private agencies tend to act as referral agents and community facilitators since they often have an older history and considerable penetration into the community of providers and clients. This activity of distributive-type agencies does not require a large num- 'ber of employees. Further, limited access to funds and an.older tradition of institutional role and function 107 on the part of these private agencies tend to promote stability but do not encourage growth or expansion into other servicing areas. Table 6 reflects the moderately older pattern among private agencies compared with public. Age appears to be a strong intervening influence between auspices and organ- izational dependency or Joint Program involvement; this conclusion will be explored further in the next section. Table 4. - The Relationship Between Public or Private Agency Status and Relative Size (Two-Way), Expressed in Q values; by agency. SIZE AUSPICES __ Small Large (Less than 17) (17 or More) Totals Public 33% (5) 67% (10) 100% (15) Private 65% (13) 35% (7) 100% (20) Totals 51% (18) 49% (17) 100% (35) Q=O.58 n=35 1 Numbers in parentheses represent the actual number of agencies or Joint Programs here and in all succeeding tables. Yule's Q statistic is utilized for all four- fold tables. Table 11 confirms the exceptionally high correlation between auspices and a treatment mode of work (Q=O.71). This relationship reflects government emphasis thus far on specialized services and direct intervention to 108 Table 5. - The Relationship Between Public or Private Agency Staius and Relative Size (Three-Way); by agency. SIZE AUSPICES Small Madium Large (3 to 9) (10-22) (23 a over) Totals Public 20% (3) 33% (5) 47% (7) 100% (15) Private 50% (10) 30% (6) 20% (4) 100% (20) Totals 37% (13) 31% (11) 31% (11) 99% (35) 0:0.711 n=35 l Computed for ”small-large” size dichotomy, with an n=24. Table 6. - The Relationship Between Public or Private Agency Status and Relative Age (Two-Way); by agency. AGE AUSPICES ’ ‘Young Old (1964 - Present) (Presl964), Totals Public 40% (6) 60% (9) 100% (15) Private 30% (6) 70% (14) 100% (20) Totals 35% (12) 65% (23) 100% (35) . Q: -o.22 n=35 W 109 relieve needs or ameliorate conditions rather than provide supportive or facilitating services for other local agen- cies or groups. This mode represents political and legis- lative realities that make the funding of skilled and pro- fessional services such as drug treatment and Job counsel- ing more feasible than transportation, child care, or referral assistance. The moderate correlation between public agency status and staff professionalism (Q20.33) supports this conclusion. Whether an agency is public or private appears completely irrelevant to its diversity of services (Q:0.00). Public agencies, then, are larger, decisively more treatment-oriented, are staffed somewhat more with profes- sionals, are slightly older, and indicate no difference in service diversity when compared with private. Public agencies do account for 43% of the agencies surveyed, yet they account for a much higher percentage of the total personnel working for human service agencies in the city surveyed. Thus, their importance is easily underestimated. Moreover, their relatively strong corre- lation with size and a treatment mode of work make public agency status an important control variable. Ag; In separating 219 agencies from ygggg, 1964 appeared to be an appropriate year. That year represented a crit- ical departure point in private and public awareness, commitment, funding and programs, in human service areas. 110 Federal legislation created much of the impetus, and both public and private agencies appeared on the local scene, often with Federal seed money, experimental funds, or more permanent forms of support. Often Federal legisla- tion spurred the initiation of local specialized agencies such as drug or alcohol de-toxification centers, mental health facilities, senior citizen centers and family counseling programs. Prior to that year, the number and nature of human service agencies had remained comparative- ly stable for some years. Generally, the pattern was mod- erate growth trends for existing agencies and few new entrants into the agency field. Stinchcombe (1965) has argued that age and structural characteristics of an organization are not necessarily related. He states that the founding date of an industry is a more valid indicator of size and other internal characteristics than is its age. This position assumes the importance of an agency's technology and the state of its specialized art as well as the relative progress of the social service field of which it is a part. Con- siderable research and analyses support this conclusion, including studies by Woodward (1965) and Perrow (1970). Pugh's (1969) empirical research sustains Stinchcombe in the more restricted sense that no correlation was found between age and either structuring of activities or ligg control of workflow. The Pugh studies did reveal, how- ever, that age correlates with autonomy and internal 111 de-centralization of decision-making. Yet, age and size have been traditionally related to some degree and though modified somewhat by factors such as technology and environment, they represent two rather consistent correlates of each other both in product- producing and service-producing organizations. Table 7 confirms a substantial positive correlation between these two factors in this research. It is notable that only three of thirty-five agencies are both young and large. Two of the three are public agencies, and the third receives substantial public funding. Table 7. - The Relationship Between the Relative Age of Agencies and Their Relative Age of Agencies and Their Relative Size (Two-Way); by agency. SIZE AGE “§fiaII (Large (Less than l7) (17 or More) Totals 01d (Pre-l964) 39% (9) 61% (14) 100% (23) Young (1964—1974) 75% (9) 25% (3) 100% (12) Totals 51% (18) 49% (17) 100% (35) Q=0.65 n=35 Therefore, though increased public funding and rev- enhe sharing may yet change the pattern, age and size 112 continue to be reliable correlates of each other. More- over, in the case of human service agencies which do not generate profits by which to measure progress and success each year, g;owth_gnd expansion of the agency are impor- tant symbols and measures of effectiveness. An organiza- tional motivation stressed in this paper is that of meas- uring progress according to domain establishment and 257 tension, an organizational initiative that not only main- tains relative position in a client and service producer's market but enhances and expands it. As Table 11 illustrates, age is a somewhat stronger correlate of service diversity than is size (Q=0.52), compared with 0.41). The difference is not significant, however, and both age and size appear to contribute to the expansion of agency services. Age is irrelevant to the question of staff professionalism (Q: -0.04), and with regard to mode of work, older age is associated with a distributive type agency (Q=O.45). This latter corre- lation would appear to relate older agency status with private auspices, since public status and a treatment mode are closely related. Yet, this is not the case and further elaboration is required to clarify or solve the uncertainty. The relatively high correlation of older agencies with service diversity and a distributive mode of work may indicate an interesting pattern. That is: older agencies develop higher service diversity as they grow 113 in size. Since a distributive mode of work correlates moderately (Q=O.45) with service diversity, but reveals no relationship with agency size (Q: -0.07), the person- nel staffing required by the agency as service diversity grows may lag behind client needs and the agency may develop a referral system, i.e., a distributive mode of work. In turn, this mode of work would tend to limit growth of the agency. In summary, old agencies compared with young are substantially larger and relatively more diverse in ser- vices; they are also moderately correlated with a QEET tributive mode of work. Age appears irrelevant to aus- pices and the particular level of staff professionalism in the agency. Conversely, the younger agency tends to be smaller, less diverse in services offered and oriented toward a treatment mode of work. Size Caplow declares in his book, Principles of Organiza- .§igg (1964) that there is no wholly satisfactory measure of organization size. Pugh, g§_al. (1969) use the number of employees and net assets as a combined yardstick for size. Other individual measures or combinations of organ- izational traits have beenuutilized -- e.g.: geographical dispersion or density; budget levels; and hierarchical levels. Increasingly, the total number of employees is becoming acceptable as an appropriate as well as a quan- titatively comparative method for measuring organizational 114 size. Recent empirical studies have generally used this measure both for causal and correlational analysis, includ- ing: Hall, Haas and Johnson (1967); Aiken and Hage (1968); and Payne and Mansfield (1973). The total number of employees (or full-time equivalent employees, if part-time personnel are involved) is the size determinant in this research. Volunteers are not included. Tables 4 and 5, referred to above, reflect the strong correlation between public agency status and relative size. This correlation is higher when agency size is segmented three ways and the middle one-third is omitted. A partial explanation for this relationship is indicated by the strong correlation between public status and a treatment mode of work. Thus, size is crucial for treatment oriented agencies as opposed to agencies engaging more in distribu- tive functions. Distributive agencies rely more on a small non-professional staff who offer support services such as referrals, community information, volunteers, transportation, emergency assistance, and other ancillary services. The correlations between relative size and both age and service diversity relate to the Blau (1955) conclusion that structural differentiation is a consequence of expand- ing size. Though this finding has been disputed by some researchers (for example: Zelditch and Hopkins, 1961; Hall, 2£_gl., 1967; Meyer, 1972), Blau's longitudinal study of finance units in governmental agencies strongly 115 supported size as an influential variable that affects many organizational characteristics. All empiricists thus far agree on the value and relevance of both age and size in organizational context and structural analy- sis. Aiken and Hage (1968) used size along with age, auspices and technology as control variables applicable to all organizations. Their design facilitated better causal and relational analysis and indicated the signif- icance of this organizational parameter. Thus, size is an important intervening attribute in the analysis of the hypothesized relationships. Previous tables have indicated that larger agencies tend to be public in auspices and older (Q=0.58 and 0.65, respectively). These positive correlations are stronger when the size is tri-chotomized, and the larger and smaller one-third of the agencies is measured (Q=O.7l and 0.79, respectively). Further, as Table 11 indicates, size and service diversity are also correlated (Q=O.4l). Growth and service expansion and proliferation appear related, then, and do represent a measure of service delivery ef- fectiveness in the perceptions of agencies. Increased size is correlated with lower levels of staff professionalism (Q: -O.38, in Table 11), and size and mode of work appear entirely unrelated. In summary, larger agencies are older, under public auspices to a slight degree, moderately high in service diversity, and low in staff professionalism. On the other hand, the 116 smaller agency tends more to be professionalized, slightly more private than public, more often younger than older, and is less diverse in services offered. Service Diversity Service diversity is a measure of how broadly or nar- rowly the agency is focused with regard to the number of direct services. Low diversity implies an intensity of specialization, low agency differentiation and complexity and restricted functions and goals. Often, clients are well-defined and easily identified. Agencies specializing in alcoholism, drug abuse or legal aid are examples of low diversity types. High diversity usually involves a broad focus, a diffusion and proliferation of services, high agency differentiation and complexity and multiple func- tions and goals. Examples are distributive-type agencies such as community centers, county social services, the YMCA, and county health departments. Less often, they are treatment agencies such as vocational rehabilitation services or a child guidance clinic. Table 8 indicates that there is no relationship be- tween service diversity and staff professionalism. These two operational characteristics, when compared with all other organizational variables in Table 11, mutually exhibit an almost opposite pattern. The correlation between service diversity and a distributive mode of work (Q: -O.45, Table 9) may help explain the reason for the different patterns. High staff professionalism 117 Table 8. - The Relationship Between Service Diversity and Staff Professionalism Among Human Service Agencies; by agency. STAFF PROFESSIONALS SERVICE DIVERSITY Low High Totals High 43% (9) 57% (12) 100% (21) Low 43% (6) 57% (8) 100% (14) Totals 43% (15) 57% (20) 100% (35) Q=0.00 n=35 Table 9. - The Relationship Between Service Diversity and Mode of Work Among Human Service Agencies; by Agency MODE OF WORK SERVICE DIVERSITY Distributive Treatment Totals High 67% (14) 33% (7) 100% (21) Low 43% (6) 57% (8) 100% (14) Totals 57% (20) 43% (15) 100% (35) Q: -0.45 n=35 118 is strongly associated with a treatment mode of work (Q=O.85, in Table 10); treatment modes are associated with young, public agencies with narrow and restricted functions and impact; distributive modes are associated with older, predominantly private and less professional agencies. These latter characteristics describe the high diversity agency. Service diversity along with size represents a form of growth and acceptance for agency functions and goals. The agency director, in the absence of profit measures in his market of competitors and clients, perceives expansion in services and size as the yardstick for organizational effectiveness. Table 10. - The Relationship Between Staff Professionalism and Mode of Work Among Human Service Agencies; by agency. MODE OF WORK STAFF PROFESSIONALISM Distributive Treatment Totals High 35% (7) 65% (13) 100% (20) Low 87% (13) 13% (2) 100% (15) Totals 57% (20) 43% (l5) 100% (35) 119 Staff Professionalism and Mode of Work Staff professionalism has a strong positive correla- tion with only one other agency characteristic: a treat- ment mode of work (Q=0.81, in Table 10). The relationship is expected as treatment functions require professional services. Staff professionalism correlates weakly with public agency status and with a smaller size. The treat- ment mode departs from this pattern somewhat, showing a very strong correlation with public status (Q=O.7l, $3212 .11): and a moderately strong relationship to younger age low diversity. Whether an agency is treatment or distrib- utive oriented appears completely unrelated to size. How- ever, when high professionalism and a treatment mode are combined, the smaller sized public agency predominates and relative age and diversity become largely irrelevant. Agency Profiles When demographic and operational profiles of the agencies are developed, Table 12 reflects the frequency of each type among the thirty-five agencies. As the table indicates, the most prevalent demograph- ic profile is that of the older agency which is either public and large or private and small. These two profiles comprise 57% or sixteen of the thirty-five agencies. The least prevalent combinations are the public, old and small agency and the private, young and large. Regarding operational profiles, an agency with high service diver- sity, low staff professionalism and a distributive mode 120 Table 11. - Summary of Relationships Among Agency Charac- teristics; by agency. £3 U) H H >> m .p c 44 o h m -H 03 54 U) 3 Q) m n > o o .a a. m a 9 2 m a) m 0 C) «*1 o . ,4 (H o. m > 94 8 330 .33 ’53 .‘S’ Auspices d <: m co m (Public; Private) Age (Old; Young) 0.22 Size: Two-Way (Large; Small) 0.58 0.65 Service Diversity (4 or More; Less than 4) 0.00 0.52 0.41 Staff Professionalism (50% or More, Less than 50%) 0.33 -0.04 ~0.38 0.00 Mode of Work (Treatment; Distributive) 0.71 -0.45 -o.07 -0.45 0.85 1 All characteristics listed in the table have been dichotomized. Yules Q is utilized throughout, with an n=35 for all relationships. 121 Table 12 - Demographic and Operational Profiles of Human Service Agencies. PART I - DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES Agencies Auspices;_Age3 Size Percent Numbers 1. Public; Old; Large 23% (8) 2. Private; Old; Small 23% (8) 3. Private; 01d; Large 17% (6) 4. Private; Young; Small 14% (5) 5. Public; Young; Small 11% (4) 6. Public; Young; Large 6% (2) 7. Public; 01d; Small 3% (l) 8. Private; Young; Large 3% (1) Totals 100% (35) PART II - OPERATIONAL PROFILES Service Diversity; Staff Agencies Professionalism; Mode of Work Percent Numbers 1. High; Low;.Distributive 23% (8) 2. Low; High; Treatment 20% (7) 3. High; High; Treatment 17% (6) 4. High; High; Distributive 17% (6) 5. Low; Low; Distributive 14% (5) 6. High; Low; Treatment 3% (l) 7 Low; Low; Treatment 3% (l) 8. Low; High; Distributive 3% (1) Totals 100% (35) 122 of work is the most prevalent type. It is evident from the data that older age and larger size are associated in the case of the public agencies but not the private. The stable and more static situation reflected among private agencies contrasts with the bureaucratic growth patterns of the public sector agency. The least prevalent agency combinations also tend to emphasize this bureaucratic evolution. That is, the old and small public agency is rare. Increased pub— lic funding and sponsorship of local human services is also reflected in the paucity of private agencies that are both young and large. Operational profiles reflect the fact that among high frequency combinations, high diversity-low profes- sionalsim or low diversity-high professionalism are the most common profiles, with a distributive mode for the former and a treatment for the latter. These data under- score the fact that uni-purpose, highly specialized agencies are high in staff professionalism and dominantly treatment oriented. This conclusion is further empha- sized by the fact that one of the least frequent combi- nations is the low-diversity-high-professionalism- distributive agency is the type that exists to furnish non-professional support, referrals and ancillary ser- vices to other agencies. These agency profiles and the rationales for them are helpful both in analyzing and interpreting the data. 123 They reflect agency modes in such a way that modifying or intervening influences on the hypothesized relation- ships can be more precisely understood. For example, the researcher is encouraged to be cautious and to make careful distinctions in analyzing the data when public and private agencies alike appear to fit a bi-modalppat- Eggp. The old and large public agencies may react quite differently to Organizational Dependency than do young and small public agencies. Analogously, old and small private agencies may react to dependency or Joint activ- ity in a differential way from private agencies that are young and small. The profiles, then, add constraints and precision to data interpretation and conclusions. In this way, overall research value is enhanced and empirical conclusions are more readily transferrable to future research efforts. Part III - Agency Characteristics and nganizational Dependency Introduction A thorough understanding of the relationship between agency demographic and operational characteristics on the one hand and Organizational Dependency on the other is helpful in two respects. In the first place, a knowledge of these relationships provides profiles of agencies and their degrees of relative dependency. As a result, asso- ciations between agency conditions and levels of dependency are better understood, and possible causes of the 124 dependency may be deduced. Secondly, this analysis fur- nishes agency background and possible correlates or intervening variables that help explain "why?" and ”under what conditions?” the hypothesized relationship may occur. Auspices and Organizational Dependency Public agency status is the only characteristic indicating a strong positive correlation with Organiza- tional Dependency (i.e., Q=O.55, Table 13). Two-thirds of the public agencies perceive high dependency while only 37% of the private agencies fall in this category. Table 13. - The Relationship Between Public or Private Auspices and Organizational Dependency; by agency. ORGANIZATIONAL DEPENDENCY (External Decision Control) AUSPICES ' ‘Low ‘HIgh (Below Median) ,(Above Median) Totals Public 33% (5) 67% (10) 100% (15) Private 63% (12) 37% (7) 100% (19) Totals 50% (17) 50% (17) 100% (34) n=34 1 Q=0.55 Missing data=1 1 Data on Organization De endency is missing for one agency. Therefore, M=3 for this and succeeding tables including this variable. 125 Therefore, though only 44% of the agencies are pub- lic, public auspices accounts for 59% or ten of seventeen of the high dependency agencies. 0n the other hand, twelve of nineteen or 63% of the private agencies per- ceive $23 dependency. What factors or development explain this difference? Public agencies evolved into increased dependency under the succession of Federally-sponsored programs passed by Congress in the 1960's. The Area Redevelopment Act of 1961, the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the Ele- mentary and Secondary School Act of 1965 and the Demon- stration Cities (later, Model Cities) legislation in 1967 -- are examples of human service legislation that mandated local advisory or decision—making bodies from among persons, groups and institutions in the local com- munity, both private and public. In addition, the increasing popular ideology of shared decision-making and the officially sanctioned maximum feasible partici— pation guideline in key pieces of this legisation, served as a further spur toward Organizational Depend- ency. The atmosphere created by these guidelines and this general emphasis led many public agencies in the local community to informally coopt influential persons and groups, in order to pursue their goals effectively. This informal coopting, when combined with the formal, mandated cooperation with local decision-making elements, 126 resulted in considerable dependency for public agencies. For example, the Federally funded and mandated Con- centrated Employment Program (CEP) was established in 1966 for the purpose of reducing unemployment in geo- graphical areas with a history of persistently high unemployment and poverty. In order to secure the good will, access to potential clients and Job sources, and the general support of local persons and institutions that already were established in the relevant community, the CEP began informally and formally to share decision control. Thus, the newly created program barters its legislative mandate, funds and other agency resources for community acceptance and access to local institutional support and resources. With the good will and cooperation of local institutions that already have status among the unemployed and those with Jobs to offer, the CEP program could survive the initial period of growth and show a measure of success within its initial budgeted year. Almost twenty years earlier, Selznick (1949) had termed this agency-initiated activity, cooptation, or the absorbing of outside elements into the policy making structure of the organization as a means of averting external threats to its existence. This environmental activity may provide protective coloration for a new program or service, secure local legitimacy and accept- ance for a project originated outside the community, help guarantee clients and resources from the local 127 area, and step up the project implementation. Cooptation, however, may have adverse effects for the organization. The agency is likely to face unplanned and undesirable consequences such as a sufficient loss of decision auton- omy that the organization may be forced to change direc- tion or emphasis in policy and operations. Apart from these informal agency initiatives, recent legislation erecting or expanding human service programs often mandate the maximum use of existing local institu- tions and resources whether public or private. Sub- contracts are encouraged in order to quickly penetrate the community of providers and clients and to absorb any slack in the utilization of community professionals. In addition to these developments, an ideology of client and public participation has evolved into a gen- eral mode of operation for most public agencies. The War on Poverty's declaration of maximum feasible partic- ipation by the community being served has influenced the policies and practices of all local delivery systems to some degree. The extensive use of citizen boards and advisory committees in the public area has influenced private agencies as well. Increasingly, these voluntary agencies have sought client and community input and even decision involvement. This phenomenon may be due as much to changing managerial philosophy and practices as it is to governmental influence and example. Yet, as Table HI 128 '13 has indicated, private agencies have retained a com- paratively high level of internal decision control. Their smaller size and older, more traditional role institutionally may encourage and sustain a low depend- ency on their environment. They have less motivation to seek community support, resources and consensus than do newer, Federally-sponsored agencies or programs orig- inating outside the community. With a secure and pre- dictable volume of resource support and clients, they tend to back away from extensive decision-sharing with their respective environments. In observing the dependency associated with public agencies, one may conclude that inter—agency Joint Pro- grams are highly likely. However, the influence of Joint effects of agency characteristics such as age, size and service diversity may alter this pattern con- siderably. Further, two other patterns may occur. If the agency is extremely dependent, it may lack valued resources for exchange. Thus, regardless of its intent, it is unable to act on its dependency. On the other hand, if the agency is highly successful in its informal and formal cooptation, it may secure such strong domain consensus for its functions and goals that it no longer perceives a need for Joint activity. It is feasible, then, that a public agency may be so successful in its cooptation that its own prestige, influence and role in the community exceed and are more secure than are 129 any agencies with whom they may coalesce resources. Domain consensus may then emerge as a substitute for Joint Programs, and the organization would neither initiate nor participate extensively in inter-agency activity. Age and Size Both age and size appear largely irrelevant to the dependency level of the agency (Table 14). However, the older and smaller status of many private agencies com- pared with public indicates that age and size may be sig- nificant intervening attributes that help explain the low dependency of private agencies. Older age is a more significant correlate of low dependency private agencies, however, than is relative size (see Table 15). Older status implies considerable independence, com- munity acceptance, a tradition and identity in particular servicing areas, possession of certain valued resources, a symbiotic relationship with other agencies in the com- munity, high agency credibility with other agencies in the community, high agency credibility and relatively skilled personnel. This overall pattern indicates low Organizational Dependency, a predicted correlate of low Joint Program activity in this research. A few characteristic elements of older agencies may promote Joint activity -- namely, identity and confidence, possession of valued resources for exchange, and skilled personnel. These elements are probably more than offset, Table 14. - Summary of the Relationships Between Agency Characteristics and Organizational Depend- ency; Expressed in Q Values; by agency.1 Organizational Dependency Auspices (Public; Private) 0.55 Age (Old; Young) 0.25 Size: Two-Way (Large; Small) 0.12 Service Diversity (4 or more; Less than 4) 0.36 Staff Professionalism (50% or more; Less than 50%) 0.12 Mode of Work (Treatment; Distributive) 0.35 “T ‘5..- fl 1 All variables listed in the Table have been dichto- mized. however, by agency independence, traditional identifica- tion with service delivery in a specialized area, stable support and access to resources, and community acceptance of their functions as they exist. Moreover, the advan- tages of exchange often appear negligible and a gratui- tous risk for an old line agency. In theory, size exerts a pressure both ways. That is, increased size supports internal control and inde- pendence. Yet, increased size also promotes multiple interfaces with the environment and higher service 131 diversity. Agencies with high service diversity, low professionalism and a distributive mode of work reflect a high dependency situation (Table 15). When increases in agency size are added to this combination, the depend- ency is heightened still further. Like age, the influence of relative size in predict- ing dependency becomes clearer when it is tested with other characteristics. As Table 15 illustrates, when combined with age and auspices, size contributes almost equally to both low and high dependency. However, again in similar fashion to age, when size is tested with com- binations of operational characteristics, its role is more apparent. Operational Characteristics Table 14 depicts the moderately positive correla- tion between both service diversity and a treatment mode of work and Organizational Dependency. The level of staff professionalism and dependency appear unrelated. The dependency assumed by the organization as ser- vices expand and become more diverse is understandable. Both Resource and Domain Dependency occur as additional resources are needed and guarantees for future functions and goals are solicited from the relevant environments. When high service diversity is combined with public auspices and low professionalism, dependency tends to be higher (Table 15). The mode of work associated with this pattern is more distributive than treatment oriented, Table 15. 132 - Demographic and Operational Profiles of Human Service Agencies, and Their Relative Levels of Organizational Dependency; by Agency. PART I - DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES CDNONW-C‘UUNH Agencies High ‘L0w Auspices;yAge; Size Dependency Dependency Totals Public; Old; Large 29% (5) 18% (3) 24% (8) Private; Old; Small 24% (4) 18% (3) 20% (7) Private; Old; Large 12% (2) 24% (4) 18% (6) Private; Young; Small 0% (O) 29% (5) 15% (5) Public; Young; Small 18% (3) 6% (l) 12% (4) Public; Young; Large 6% (l) 6% (l) 6% (2) Public; Old; Small 6% (1) 0% (0) 3% (1) Private; Young; Large 6% (l) 0% (O) 3% (1) Totals 100% (17) 100% (17) 100% (34) PART II - OPERATIONAL PROFILES l. Service Diversity; (Agencies Staff Professional- *High Low ism; Mode of Work Dependency, Dependency, Totals High; Low; Distributive 29% (5) 18% (3) 24% (8) Low; High; Treatment 24% (4) 18% (3) 20% (7) High; High; Treatment 18% (3) 18% (3) 18% (6) High; High; Distributive 18% (3) 18% (3) 18% (6) Low; Low; Distributive 0% (O) 29% (5) 15% (5) High; Low; Treatment 6% (1) 0% (0) 3% (1) Low; Low; Treatment 6% (l) 0% (0) 3% (1) Low; High; Distributive 0% (O) 0% (0) 0% (0) (ID-\IC‘U'IkUON Totals 100% (17) 100% (17) 100% (34) 133 but not as decisively as in the case of the other char- acteristics mentioned. Public agencies that are diverse, low in professionals and distributive oriented are de- pendent by the very nature of their inherent role. However, why should dependency be associated with a treatment mode of work in a significant number of agency profiles? Clearly, this work orientation implies an independence of specialized and skilled functions and a predominantly high level of staff professionalism. In somewhat a parallel to the public and private auspices experience, a bi-modal pattern is evident. As Table l5_shows, a treatment mode is almost equally dis— tributed between high and low dependency agencies. Closer inspection of the operational profiles reveals that a fairly equal division between high and low depend- ency agencies also persists whether the treatment agency is high or low in diversity. Two other elements of the profiles create the bi-modal pattern. Firstly, when- ever high diversity or high professionalism (alone or Jointly) are a part of the profile along with either a treatment or distributive mode, the balance between high and low dependency agencies remains. However, the ration- ale for the dependency level varies within this group. High diversity with high professionalism invites multi- ple contacts with professionals of other agencies regard- less of the particular mode of work. Inter-agency aware- ness, coordination and informal exchange of information 134 by professionals evolves into Domain Dependency. This dependency is based on a perception of clients as need- ing multiple services and support systems. On the other hand, when low diversity is combined with high professionalism, the agency perceives problems of more funding and programs in the face of a dynamic environ- ment and considerable inter-agency competition. This type of agency recognizes the inflexibility and static nature of its competitive position, and attempts to innovate. This activity creates a Resource Dependency. And finally, the high diversity-low professionalism agency perceives both Domain and Resource Dependency. This agency type is aware of protecting and guarantee- ing its domain of multiple services; simultaneously, it lacks the security of highly prized professionals. ment each init: eval- I; CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA Introduction In this chapter, individual sections are devoted to each of the three components of the hypothesis. The fourth and concluding section contains a synthesis of the components, a composite summary of the findings and an interpretation of their overall meaning. The basis of the analysis is the hypothesis: Joint Program involvement_py human service agencies in the community is associated with agency director perceptions of Organ- izational Dependenpy. The data analysis begins with statistical measure- ment of the relationship of Organizational Dependency to each component of Joint Program involvement: frequency; initation; and intensity.1 This process then includes an evaluation of individual agency characteristics and their relative contributions and relationships to the particular 1 Hereafter, in this chapter, the relationships between Organizational Dependency and each of the three com- ponents of Joint Program involvement are referred to either as first, second, or third compcnents, or the greguency, InItiatIon or intensity components. 135 ,- 136 component of the hypothesis. Finally, demographic and operational characteristics are combined into egency;pro- .Elléfi according to their association with the hypothesis is measured by agency, by individual characteristics apart from agency identification, and by combined characteristics or agency profiles. The fourth and concluding section of the chapter inte- grates the findings from the three components of the hypothesis, and presents an interpretation of the overall meaning of the data. Part I - Orggnizational Dependency and 'Joint‘Program‘Fquuency Results: General The first component wassustained. A Yules Q of 0.54 (Table 16) indicates a positive relationship between Organizational Dependency and a relatively high frequency of Joint Programs. Eleven of the agencies or one-third of the overall total are high dependency agencies with from two to six Joint Programs; and another one-third are low dependency agencies with either none or one Joint Program. Therefore, twenty-two agencies or two-thirds of the entire group confirm the direction of this first com- ponent. Thus, they support the proposition that a high frequency of Joint Programs is associated with agency director perceptions of an external locus of decision control for the organization; and conversely, a low fre- quency of Joint Programs is associated with perceptions 137 of an internal locus of decision control for the organizaa tion. Results: Demographic Characteristics Though public agencies indicate considerably higher dependency -- i.e., two-thirds or ten of the fifteen pub- lic agencies compared with a little over one-third or seven of nineteen of the private -- Table 17 shows that private agencies offer more support to this component than do public. Especially in the low dependency-low Joint Program quadrant, private agencies predominate, accounting for eight of the eleven in this category. Private agencies constitute 56% of all agencies, yet they contribute 64% of the agency agreement with the frequency component. Table 16. - The Relationship Between Organizational Dependency and the Relative Frequency of Joint Programs; by agency. Organizational Depend- Joint Programs ency (External Decision Control) Low (0-1) High (2-6) Totals High - Above Median Agency 35% (6) 65% (ll) 100% (17) Low - Below Median Agency 65% (ll) 35% (6) 100% (17) Totals 50% (17) 50% (17) 100% (34) n=34 Q=0o54 Information Missing=l 138 Regarding age, older agencies constitute 73% of agency agreement with this component. Since they com- prise 65% of all agencies, the margin between the ex- pected and actual level is identical to that of private auspices. However, in absolute numbers, older status is the strongest demographic variable for high dependency- high Joint Program frequency (nine agencies) as well as for both high and low dependency agreement with the com- ponent (16 agencies). Next to older status, a larger size is the best predictor of high dependency and high Joint Program fre- quency in terms of the number of agencies involved (nine and seven, respectively) and percentage involvement (82% and 64%), among demographic characteristics. On the low dependency-low Joint Program side, private agency status is the only characteristic that has marked strength, covering eight agencies and 73% of this side of the auspices dichotomy. Thus the egge of private over public auspices in contributing to the component is based on low dependency couples with low Joint Program involvement that characterizes private agencies. It is evident then that the frequency component would not have been sustained if the high dependency and high Joint Program frequency of one-third of the public agencies was not reinforced and strengthened by the more significant 42% of private agencies indicating low dependency and low Joint Program frequency, the correlative of the hypothesis. 139 .%UC0UG0Q0Q HsCOprNHGmwao wcH>Ho>cH 0900 Has How :muc osomohonp amenawm 020 now wnammfia ma coaumanomcfi monoosommm Hmcoapsmficswuo H am aooa mm sooa AHA aooa Add ROOH Hopes NH mom oa mm: M: mom Mo amm Haosm AH aom ma amm a gem m em: owsoq . seam am aooa «mm aooa Ada aooa AHH aooa Hosea ma amm Am mam Mm ems M: mom mcoow mm amm boa amp m mam A was oao . oma am sooa Mum sooa AHA aooa AHA sooa Hopes ma amm NH ass Mm amm Mm ems oposasa ma as: m gem m am: m gem oaaoom - mooaaooa ~w0HUC0w< Hamq. Hmpoe INOCodehm anwx monomdmsm Esmw. mofipmanmpomhsno mampoa Hama0>o loam chOb swam loam pcaoh 30A oanmshwoamm mentoCoaoa swam hososdoam 30A z0c0w< H.%oc0wm an «mowoDC0ohmm was wsonasz 2H whocosvmhm amnmonm psHOh npfiz hose nosmmmo ascoapmuwcomao mo soapwaoOmmm one :1 mammnpoahm 0:» mo pamcoQSOO pagan one on soapsnfiapCOU saw:& was mofipwfisoposnszo ofinmmamosoa hocowm 1 .NH wants To (Let 140 The modal composite agency in the hypothesized direction is predominantly older, usually larger and tends somewhat more toward private than public status. Results: Operational Characteristics Table 18 illustrates the contributions of operational characteristics to the frequency component. Although high service diversity comprises an unusually high percentage of total agencies (21 of 34, or 62%), this organizational trait still emerges as proportionally a mgge important contributor to the hypothesized relationship than any other characteristic. Moreover, its incidence of ten agencies and 90% agreement with high dependency-high Joint Program frequency make it the most noteworthy cor- relate to this component among all demographic and oper- ational characteristics. This strength is reflected to a lesser degree in its correlative, i.e., low diversity and low Joint Program frequency. Only one low diversity agency is recorded as a high dependency organization, the lowest cell size in all relationships recorded. Staff professionalism and mode of work both are less decisive in their impact and contribution to the frequency component. High staff professionalism does comprise seven (64%) of the eleven agencies that are high in dependency and Joint Program frequency. Thus, it is a positive correlate of the hypothesized direction. Whether the agency is treatment or distributive oriented in mode of work appears irrelevant when measuring these 141 am woos mm aeoa AHH mood “Ha mooa Hopes ma mom ma amm Mm emm Mm amm asapssaapoam mg as: oa mm: m mm: m am: possesses sacs me too: am sooa Amm aooa Ada mooa Add mooa Hopes ma as: am gas Ma gem Mm ems sea ma mom Ame mom a Raw 6 amm swam SmHHdCOHmm OHOHm www.mnwm am seed Amm woos AHH mooa AHA aooa asses ma amm Am mam AH sea Mm am: 36A Hm mam Asa ems Aoa mom a mom swam mpfims0>am 00a>hmm mmofios0w¢ Hao loam pcfloh nwfim loam pcfiob 30A descaumhomo hocmocomom swam hocoocomom 30g mosowd .hocows an mmommchohmm use mhmnasz ca whocmswmnm chOh spa: honousommm HmQOHpmNHcmwao mo sofipmHOOmmm one an psosogaoo pmham one on coapznfihpcoo pawns use moapmahoposhsno H0s0Hpsuomo hoamwd n .ma canoe 142 attributes in terms of this component. Composite Results: Individual Characteristics Table 19 ranks all characteristics -- demographic and operational -- in the order of their relative con- tribution to the first component. Certain numbers and percentages in this table help one to better understand agency patterns that are associated with the hypothesized direction. High diversity and older status appear as the strong- est and most consistnn;individual correlates for agreement with Organizational Dependency and Joint Program frequency, with larger size and high staff professionalism somewhat less influential. Yet, the former attributes do not emerge quite as significantly in a table that stresses low 222 high contributions to this component in compari- son with the previous tables that tended to stress high. For example, the large number of private agencies that have low dependency and either none or one Joint Program helps make private auspices a significant contributor to the hypothesized direction. The third column in the table illustrates that a scant eight percentage points separate the top five characteristics -- high diversity, private, old, large and high staff professionalism -- when they are ordered according to their ranking among agencies in the category. Service Diversity is the only characteristic that is decisively on the high side, with a rather small percentage contribution from the low. Ill-rill Ck. (NLOB A. 143 Amav mooa Away woos Amav mooa Amav mooa Aeav mooa Amav aooa Amav mooa Aaav mooa Amav aeoa “adv mooa Ammv woos Aamv aooa mmmflocmwm,ad¢% mampoa Hamao>o gov at: 161 gem Amv amm lav goo Aoav mam Aoav ego Amav amt Amav age Amav amt Aaav see Aoav awe Aoav see Hapoa Adv am Amy aka Ame amm Asv mam Asa gem Ame amm on amm lav as: Age agm lav em lav as: Aoav am: no mucosdmum Edam 10pm psHOh swam mesmosomom nwflm Amv smm lav smm Amy gem Ame emm gov emm Amv amm gov amm Aha saw gov amm Amy am: Aev gmm Aev mam Boga: hpfimhoaflm 00H>amm wcsownn 0mm ofiapsmn: mooflams< 30A qumHHmCOHmmomOHm wmmpm Haosm-- team pcoepmohaunxpoz no 0602 oaap nosaaaeao--ssoz mo ooos mwamquu 0NHm swam IIEmHHeCOHmmomoam mmsum 0p0>HAmnu mooammsm UHOII mwd Smamun hpfimao>fim 00H>a0m Nocosdomm Emmm. loam pCHOb 30a homeosmmoa 30A moapmfihmpomhmco hocmw¢ .Aosows hp mmowmpcmonom one msonadz CH “memospomhm 0:» mo psosomsoo pmnfim 03p spa: psosomnw< op wcfi schooo< omxcmm «mofiocmw< ho moapmfihopomssno Hmsoapohomo was oanmsnwoaom n .ma magma rk “I J. r Au COT. at: Vol.- »\ Q» «I 144 All other characteristics produce balanced contributions from both the high and low sides. Whether an agency is treatment or distributive oriented in its mode of work appears irrelevant to this component. Each mode contributes two-thirds of its respective total to the hypothesized direction, and, therefore, they are equally influential. Doubtless, confounding effects from other characteristics are oper- ative. For example, the high correlation previously noted between high staff professionalism and a treatment mode would tend to associate treatment orientation with this component; on the other hand, the nature of a dis- tributive agency induces Joint Program involvement in the sense that referrals and facilitating services in- volving other agencies are commonplace. Does the pro- fessional's willingness to relate to other specialists and to cooperative ventures outside the organization prove a stronger spur to Joint Programs than the non- professional’s need in the distributive type agency for effective referrals and services -- an activity that requires professionals from other agencies? Agencprrofiles Agency agreement with the first component is arranged by demographic and operational profiles in Tables 20 and ‘g;. The modal demographics fitting the hypothesized direction are public, old and large agency status. The counterpart operational profile is that of high diversity 145 Ammv woos AHV am Aav am g as 2; a: 13 as: $1 a: 13 ems at same flwofiocmwd Hdmv mampoa Hamhm>o Ammv mooa Adv as 81 so gov so lav am 5 a: E amm 5 arm Ev EN Hopes AHHV 3 13 18 E 18 E E E ROOH go go go am so as gem mom Aaav 18 AS on AHV E 5 g E &OOH aspoe mo 0mhwq mwcsow mopm>flpm so Haosm moao moaapom R0 owned MwCSoM moHHnsm am Haosm Macoow moaaeom Rpm Hamam mwssow mopm>fiam Rem emasq undo mopm>fiam ama Haosm moao moeosaaa mma mason moao moaapom HNMS’LHKOF—CO lNdcumdmpm 808w loam chOb nwflm hocmocogom swam Nososdogm ssmw loam DCHOh 30A museumsmom 304 mafim mmw<74moofimms< .hocmwd an mmommpcoohmm use myopasz CH whocosvonm EHHwOHm pcfioh Spas honouComom assoapsuasmwno mo coapmaoommm one 1: pcosom usoo pmnfim on» on wcoapsnanpcoo nfiona was moaamosm oasmmhwoamo hocmw< I .om manta Ammv good Adv gm Adv gm lav gm Ame gas 101 gee 201 gee 146 Aev gom Ame gmm dm0fioC0w¢ Hadv 0H0uoe HH0H0>O Ammo good gov go on go Adv gm Amy gag Ase gma 20v gem AHHV good Addy gooa gov go gov go on go gov go Aav gm on go on go Amv gem Ame gem gay go Amv gem Amv gem AHV go Amy gma Ame gem Amv gma 2000Sd0am 80Hw‘ 20:0Md0mm E0Mw loam pGHOh swam loam pGHOh 309 20:00:0m0m swam 20:00:0m0m 304 H0009 0002 0>fipspfihpmfia Emfla0commm090hm swam 2pHmn0>HQ 30A .m 0002 pc0apm0he 80HH0002000moam 30A zpamn0>am 309 .e 0002 pC0Ep00hB SmHH0s0Hmm0momm 302 apaoaoaao 00am .0 0002 0>Hpsnfippmfim amHH0coamm0moum 302 hpamm0>fim 304 .m 0002 0>Hpsnanpmfim smHH000Hmm0moam swam apaososao 00am .3 0002 DC0Sp00gB EmHH0COHmm0monm swam epaoaosao swam .m 0002 pc0Sp0mnB EmmH0COfimm0m0hm swam hpfimu0>an 309 .m 0002 0>fipsnampmma Emfiflmcoamm0moum 30A hpmmh0>fin swam .H 2&03 no 0002 EwHH0coamm0mohm mmmpm 20amh0>an 00H>u0w II szmod .mos0wm an ”0000ps0oh0m 0:0 mh0nsdz CH mzoc0500nm E0nwOHm pGHOh :pH3 20:00:0909 H0soau0umc0wno ho soap0fioomm< 029 I: 020000 1500 pagan 0gp op msoauspfigpcoo ufi0na 0:0 00HHM0hm H0Q0Hp0n0mo 20s0w¢ : .Hm 0Hn09 147 and professionalism coupled with a treatment mode. This classification furnishes a more practical and realistic guide to both understanding component strengths of the hypothesis and making applications to agencies. A worth- while piece of information revealed by the tables is that in only one profile of the sixteen demographic and opera- tional combinations is there 100% agreement with the com- ponent -- i.e., high diversity, high professionalism, and a treatment mode. Demographically, a private-old-and large agency profile comes the closest to total agreement representing five of the six agencies in this category. A review of Table 20 confirms the dominant part that older status and private auspices play in sustaining the frequency component. Each characteristic is present in three of the four top agency profiles. These particular profiles account for nineteen of the twenty-two agencies that sustain component direction. This table also re- veals that the low dependency-low Joint Program side is more consistent and diffused in influence across the first four profiles than is the high side. This tends to indicate mixed patterns leading to Joint Programs rather than a few dominant ones. Table 21 indicates that the third-ranking profiles in overall incidence -- high diversity and professional- ism, with a treatment mode -- leads in agreement with dependency-frequency in terms of number of agencies (6), percentage of agencies in agreement (27%) and in its 148 percentage margin gpgyg its portion of total agencies. When the third and fourth ranking profiles are combined, ten of the twelve agencies fitting that category are in support of this component. This table establishes fur- ther the dominance of high diversity, and to a somewhat less extent high professionalism in reporting support of frequency. When demographic and operational characteristics are combined in order to determine an overall modal agency in the component direction, the type of agency resulting is a private, old and small one with high diversity, high professionalism and a distributive mode of work. This prototype occurs three times among the twenty-two agency types that support the frequency component. Analysis: Organizational Dependency and Joint ProgramgFreggengy If the analysis is done by individual characteristics, the most prevalent pattern for a dependency-frequency relationship is the old and large private agency with high service diversity and staff professionalism, and a treatment mode of work (Table 19). If the analysis is on the basis of agencypprofiles, the most salient indi- vidual profiles in support of dependency-frequency are the old and large public agency with high diversity and professionalism and a treatment mode (Tables 20 and g1). The agency profile indicating the least tendency toward Joint Program frequency is the young and large public 149 agency with low diversity, low professionalism and a treatment mode. Private agency status is a bi-modal phenomenon in its contribution to the first component. Private agencies with low dependency and low Joint Program frequency tend to be older and smaller, high in staff professionalism, and they are evenly distributed in service diversity and mode of work. They occupy a traditional, stable place in the community service delivery scheme; they have a solid core of influential supporters at the local level; they deal with United Way as an equal in the sense that they perceive that they bring as much or more value and resources to the organization as they take away; increased specialization and professionalism has often reinforced their sense of autonomy and self-sufficiency; they find it relatively easy to resist United Way efforts to coa- lecmatheir programs or service delivery with other agen- cies; and they are averse to swift growth or innovations in programs or services. For these reasons, they see no rationale for sharing decisions with outside agents and thus acquiring dependency. Often, they have a constitu- ency and a traditional community role that is widely acknowledged and respected. Though they may have resources to exchange with other agencies, they lack a rationale or motivation. Neither Resource nor Domain Dependency are perceived as either present or a relevant consideration to agency effectiveness. 150 What explains, then, the high dependency-high Joint Program agencies that are under private auspices? These agencies are predominantly older and high in service diversity, they are likely to be high in staff profes- sionalism and a distributive mode of work. Size appears to have little influence either way. Though these agen- cies are older and may be quite traditional, their high diversity of services and distributive mode generate dif- ferentiation within the organization, multiple contacts with outside agents and organizations, a number of special- ized services or programs, a more diffuse and possibly less responsive constituency, and a need for innovation. They perceive the need for United Way support and accede more to the latter agency's direction toward more inter- agency cooperation. Competitive innovations and the seek- ing of multiple sources of funds are considerations that motivate them to acquire dependency and to engage in Joint Programs. In addition, their tendency toward a distribu- tive mode of work encourages inter-agency agreements on referrals and ancillary services. Resource Dependency based on innovation needs appears more prevalent among these private agencies than is Domain Dependency. Though a basic budget and solid community support is often guar- anteed, innovation and growth in programs and services represent the competitive edge for the agency -- the measuring instruments among non-profit organizations that is comparable to profit levels in the more typical private enterprise. Not only are additional resources 151 needed to fuel the innovations, but there is an awareness of competing with public and private agencies alike, for public monies and additional service delivery roles in the community. Activity in the public sphere, then, may influence and enhance private agency propensities to in- novate and grow. In the perceptions of these agencies, the sharing of some budget and decision autonomy in the birth of Joint Programs appears to be a reasonable price to pay for worthwhile innovations and a favorable growth curve. Agency characteristics least associated with depend- ency and Joint Program frequency are low service diver- sity, younger age and public auspices. The fact that an agency specializes in the delivery of few services implies both low dependency and low Joint Program involvement. Neither Resource nor Domain Dependency would appear as likely in an agency situation of few services or programs. 0n the other hand, high diversity feeds on change in the resource mix and relative needs, and it carves out a ter- ritory that involves multiple transactions and task envi- ronments. High service diversity also helps create the differentiation of functions and an internal dynamic lead- ing to innovation, especially in agencies that have high staff professionalism and considerable external competi- tion. This_pattern fits the theoretical formulation ear- lier in this research that results in Resource Dependency. Younger, public agencies, however, do not confront )1 152 competition in the same way that private agencies do. If the public agency also is low in service diversity, and is small and treatment-oriented, it is not inclined to participate in Joint Programs regardless of its_per- ceived level of Organizational Dependency. An analysis, then, of the public agency ingredient-characteristics that support the hypothesis makes the contribution and the limitations of the frequency component clearer. In examining public agencies, the bi-modal pattern evident among private agencies changes to a mixed pat- tern. On initial inspection, the high Organizational Dependency coupled with comparatively large size would appear to indicate high Joint Program frequency. Pre- sumably, this development would be based on Domain De- pendency. Since legislation and administrative guide- lines make program mandates and budget levels specific and fixed for the period involved, Resource Dependency due to innovation appears unlikely. However, the desire of the public administrators to penetrate client sources and to secure support and cooperation from agencies and institutions in the community often leads to Domain De- pendency. That is, effort to gain community consensus in favor of the public agency's programs involves shar- ing decision control with relevant environmental agents. However, in contrast to the dependency perceived by pri- vate agencies, this dependency does not necessarily induce the public agency to seek Joint Program involvement. 153 A particular mix of agency characteristics is the key to whether the public agency reacts to dependency by coa- lescing with other agencies. Without economic and com- petitive motives to engage in Joint Programsp_character- ietics have to be ideally favorable to an exchange of resources. Clearly, the economic and competitive motives of many private agencies are stronger spurs to Joint activity than are domain needs for public agencies. Thus, when public agencies are generally low in service diversity, treatment-oriented, relatively small and young, and tending toward low staff professionalism, their Organizational Dependency does not result in Joint Program efforts. This result, however, changes dramati- cally if service diversity is high and the agency is both old and large. Staff professionalism and mode of work orientation appear irrelevant to Joint Program frequency for public agencies. This pattern of public agencies appears to comple- ment that of the private agencies. That is, perceptions of Resource Dependency are a more significant motivation toward Joint Programs than are perceptions of Domain dependency. These young, public agencies with low diver- sity perceive high resource independence, and this leads them to avoid Joint Programs even though they may per- ceive Domain Dependency. Thus, their money and legis- lative mandate grant them an independence that make Joint Programs seem unnecessary. On the other hand, with increases in diversity and older age, the public agency may sense Resource as well as Domain Dependency. As the data confirm, this new pattern may lead to Joint Programs. The question of whether the focal agency initiates or merely responds to Joint Program activity assumes rather critical importance at this point. An under- standing of agency conditions associated with the initation of Joint Programs complements and supple- ments the value of this first component. Part II - Organizational Dependency and Joint Prggram Initiation Results: General The second component of the hypothesis -- the association of Organizational Dependency and Joint Program Initiation -- was supported at a relatively weak correlation level (Q=0.21, Table 22). Seven of the twelve agencies reporting that they have initiated Joint Programs are in the high dependency-high Joint Program quadrant. Yet, this figure represents only 21% of the total number of agencies. On the other hand, 30% of the total agencies are high dependency agencies that have not initiated any Joint Programs. Therefore, the association between dependency and Joint Program initiation between dependency and Joint Program initiation is weak and tenuous. 155 Table 22. - The Relationship Between Organizational Dependency and Agency Initiation of Joint Programs; by Agency. Organizational Depend- Agency Initiation of Joint Programs ency (External Deci- sion Control) No Yes Totals High - Above Median 59% (10) 41% (7) 100% (17) Low - Below Median 69% (ll) 31% (5) 100% (16) Totals 64% (21) 36% (12) 100% (33) Q=O.21 n=33 Missing Data=2 Results: Individual Characteristics Table g3 presents a ranking of both demographic and operational characteristics according to their individual contributions to the second hypothesis. At this level of analysis, high service diversity and older status stand apart from the other characteristics as strong correlates and therefore relatively ideal situations for the initia- tion of Joint Programs. Private auspices, a distributive mode of work and high staff professionalism are also associated with program initiation, but their influence is subJect to doubt because of their smaller percentages and their mixed patterns. The most unfavorable circumstances for Joint Program initiation would involve agencies with low service diver- sity and a treatment mode of work. 156 “may gooH Aav gom Amy gma Amv gma psospoome- ago: mo moo: Amav good Amv gm: on go Amv gm: son- memosmsao moaasmm Aaav good Amv gmm Amv gag Amy gmm oaasom- mooaaooa AHHV good Amy goo Adv g 20v gmm maze»- oma logo gooa Ame gom Ame gma 10V gmm geese- ammo Aeav gooa Amy gmm gov gem Amy gmm mason- omam Ammo gooa gov gee Aav gam Amy g0m sma0-smaaosoaoommosm mmoem “adv good Aoav gae Ame gom Aev gom seq-aeaaocoaomomoam 00000 Aoav gooa Aaav gmm Amv gmm 20v gmm osapooaapoao Mme; mo moo: Amav gooa Ammo gmo Amv gom Aev gem oposasm- oooaaooa Aamv gooH Amav gmo Aev gmm 20v gmm swam- memososam ooasaom Ammo gooa game gmo gov gem 10v gem oao- oma ~00H000w¢7HH¢q H0009 compmfipHsH E0mw‘ mafimflpficH Smam‘ moapmfim0pomh0no hocmwm ommpoe Haoaoso nosm psaoo spa: -oam psaoo oz 20:00:0m0m swam 20:00:0m0a 30A .2000wm 29 “00w00000a0m 0:0 mn0nssz CH mmfim0npomhm 0:» mo 0:0coqaoo 0coo0m 02p £0H3 #:0800hwg on wcfi0aoood 002002 a0030091. wo mofipmmh0po0g0£o H000H00h0ao 0C0 0a£m0wmoa0m 1 .mm 0HQ0B 'I 157 Results: Demographic Profiles of Agencies As Table 24 indicates, agencies that are either pub- lic, old and large or private, old and small have the highest number of Joint Program initiations. Yet, the most favorable agency_profile for initiatingpprograms is a small and old private agency. The strength of this profile is not fully revealed in 22212 24 because three of the agencies involved do not confirm the hypothesis. Actually, all six of the agencies with this profile re- port that they initiate Joint Programs. Therefore, though this profile fits only 25% of all agencies with Joint Programs, it constitutes 50% of all agencies initiating Joint Programs. 0n the other hand, the profiles least associated with Joint Program initiation -- among agencies already involved in Joint Program activity -— are,public or ppivate agencies that are both young and small. Though one of these two profiles -- private, young and small -- comprises 28% of the agreement with the Initiation Com- ponent, this support is based on the fact that the five agencies fitting the profile are low dependency agencies that did not initiate Joint Programs. Thus, the agree- ment comes from the correlative of the component. Among the seven agencies with both high dependency and Joint Program initiation, the private-old-small profile again leads numerically with three. The public- old-large profile is next with two. 158 Illl-IAC'II v! .' )l! .l'“ Iv. . 1:. VI. .llIlIvI'.‘- I-) tl’lu‘ Ammo gooa Ammv good Aev gooa 2000 gooa aaopoe lav g Ame go Adv gag gov go oases mmeooe mooosasm .0 Adv gm gov go gov go gov go 00000 0000 moaanom .e “my g0 gov go gov go on go 00000 Mmsoom moaapsm .0 2:0 gmm 200 go gov go 200 gm Harem Macao» Meaghan .0 Amy gma Ame gmm loo go Ame go: geese ameaom mosesmam .3 A00 gmm A30 gmm Amy gag Amy gem 00000 memo moposamm .m Aev gmm Amy gea Amy gm: gov go aaoam memo mogosasm .m 200 gem Aav gmm Amv gmm Amy gmm 00000 moao ”600000 .0 2000000w< HH0050000000 on go on go on go on go 000000000000000 0000 000000>00 300 .0 0002 000000009 000 gm on go on go on go 000000000000000 300 h00000>00 300 .0 0002 000000009 000 gm on go on go on go 000000000000000 300 000000>00 000m .0 0000 m>0050000000 Amy gmH 0:0 gmm 000 go 000 g0m 600000000000000 300 000000>00 300 .m 0002 0>00sn000000 000 g00 0:0 gmm 000 gmm 000 g00 000000000000000 0000 000000>00 000m .0 0002 000000009 0 gm0 Amv g00 000 gmm 000 gm 000000000000000 0000 000000>00 0000 .m 0002 000000009 000 g00 000 go on go 000 gm 000000000000000 0000 000000>00 300 .m 0000 m>0020000000 Amy Ram on 0mm Amy Rm: Amv 000 000000000000000 300 000000>00 000m .0 Ln 0 000000000 000% 00009 0000000000 00mm. 0000000009 0000, 0003 00 0002 000009 00000>o :000 00000 0003 1000 00000 02 000000000000000 00000 0000000000 0000 0000000000 300 h00000>00 000>00m -- 000000 .000000 00 000000000000 000 0000002 00 m00000o00 00000 00 0000000000 000 0003 0000000000 00000000000000 00 00000000000 009 us 000000000 000000 000 00 000050000000 00009 000 00000000 00000000000 000000 u .mm 00009 \l 161 in service delivery, and especially, a community consen- sus for their functions and goals. However, in a period of increased sensitivity to client and community needs and with the infusion of more public money into local service delivery systems, their stable and often static funding becomes inadequate. Though their domain of functions is largely unchallenged in the community, their inter-agency competition for additional funds and the pressure of innovation professionals within the agency induces strong motivations to grow and to seek new or expanded roles in programs and services. A Resource Dependency develops as the agency moves to implement its innovations. A symbiotic relationship may develop in these cir- cumstances between the public and private agency. The public agency perceives a Domain Dependency; the private agency perceives a Resource Dependency. When the public agency coalesces with the private, it would be inclined to share money and a legislative mandate in return for local status, clients, and consensus for their programs and goals. On the other hand, the private agency has a domain consensus already for its function and goals, but often lacks new funds and expanded legal status. The data appear to support the private agency initiatives toward Joint Programs considerably more than the public. For this reason, a specific and immediate economic need and tangible resources appear as a stronger motivation 162 to inter-agency cooperation than the more normative need and intangible resources associated with community con- sensus and support. Private auspices and a Resource Dependency associ- ated with innovation appears to be a more dominant mode leading to both the initiation and a high frequency of Joint Programs than is public auspices with its tendency toward Domain Dependency. Thus, the high Organizational Dependency that is characteristic of public agencies does not necessarily lead to Joint Programs because Domain Dependency -- a dependency that is managed through shar- ing decision control with external environmental agents and institutions -- is not as strong a motivation to coalesce programs as is the Resource Dependency asso- ciated with innovation and growth. Moreover, the public agency's dependency involves shared decision control but often not shared budget control. An expanded budget and possibly a newly mandated service role are often the primary motivators for the private agency's initiating Joint activity. Thus, the potentially symbiotic rela- tionship may more readily be recognized and sought by the private agency rather than the public. An additional explanation for private agency initia- tives toward Joint Programs more than public lies in the inherent rewards of domain concensus through shared decision control. The public agency may conclude that the domain consensus attained through its policy of 163 cooptation or cooperation -- i.e., the soliciting of advice and the sharing of organizational decisions through advisory groups, community boards, specialized task forces, individual or program interaction with environmental elements -- is sufficient and appropriate to handle its Domain Dependency. For this reason, the public agency may utilized domain consensus as a sub- stitute for Joint Programs. On the other hand, the pri- vate agency is apt to require tangible resources for program delivery; this outcome often requires a formal- ized Joint Program. Regarding a favorable level of professionalism or mode of work for initiation of Joint Programs, a mixed pattern appears. Agencies with low staff professional- ism and a distributive mode have high dependence on Joint Programs. They depend for effectiveness on refer- rals to professionals in other agencies or in symbioti- cally relating their facilitating or ancillary services to those of other agencies. Therefore, they indicate high initiation of Joint Programs because of Resource Dependency. Thus, for example, Senior Services has access to clients and some funds, but they must bargain or coalesce for professional expertise and program funds. Another pattern involves high professionalism with either a distributive or treatment mode. High profession- alism may either create self-sufficiency and independence that leads to avoidance of Joint Programs or it may 164 generate greater knowledge and concern about related needs and services that may lead to joint activity. When this high professionalism is associated with high diversity and older status, the initiation of Joint Pro- grams occurs regardless of mode of work. Part III - Organizational Dependency andfiJOint Program Intensity Results: General The third component of the hypothesis -- the asso- ciation of Organizational Dependency and Joint Program Intensity -- was supported (Q=O.38, Table 26). Therefore, agencies with high dependency tend to be more committed to the Joint Programs in which they are involved. This commitment is measured, for example, by component elements such as the number of resources con- tributed, agency commitment of money, the decision-making autonomy granted to the Joint Program by the agency, the formality of the Joint Program agreement, the distinct- ness of its identity and its duration. Each of these components may contribute to Joint Program intensity, and they measure the depth and extent of agency willing- ness to grant resources, authority and status to an inter—agency structure. Support for the intensity component comes virtually in equal measure from high dependency-high intensity agencies (eight) and from low dependency-low intensity agencies (seven). Thus, seven low dependency agencies 165 choose some Joint Program involvement but tend to avoid intense commitment to them, and eight high dependency agencies not only choose Joint Programs, but also tend to commit themselves intensely. This factor reinforces the tentative conclusions drawn from the data for the first and second components. That is, a general pattern exists for all agencies that associates various levels of Organizational Dependency with a series of Joint Pro- gram involvement plateaus, namely: no Joint Programs; low Joint Program frequency; high Joint Program frequency; the initiation of Joint Programs; high intensity of Joint Programs. Agency Profiles The old and large public agency has the highest incidence as well as the highest percentage intensity of all agency profiles (Table 27), whether one is refer- ring to high dependence-high intensity alone or whether this profile is combined with low-dependency-low inten- sity agencies. Thus, neither private nor small agencies appear to support this component as they supported the previous ones. In terms of operational characteristics the profiles are more evenly distributed with no one pattern clearly dominant (Table 28). High diversity, high staff profes- sionalism and a treatment mode is highest in incidence and percentage of all agencies involved in Joint Programs, followed closely by high diversity, high professionalism . /_ 1 166 Table 26. - The Relationship Between Organizational Dependency and the Intensity of Joint Programs; by Agency. Intensity of Joint Programs Organizational Dependency (Agency Intensity Index) (External Decision Control) Low High Totals High - Above Median Agency 38% (5) 62% (8) 100% (13) Low - Below Median Agency 58% (7) 42% (5) 100% (12) Totals 48% (12) 52% (13) 100% (25) Q=O.38 n=25 Agencies w/o Joint Programs=9 Dependency Data Unavailablezl The intensity of Joint Programs is measured by a seven- component index of Joint Program characteristics. See Chapter III under Methodology for an explanation of the index. and a distributive mode. When these two profiles are combined with the third ranking agency type -- high diversity, low professionalism and a distributive mode -- the result is almost identical to the initiation com- ponent. Thus, initiation and intensity of Joint Programs appear somewhat associated. Again, high service diversity and older status emerge as stronger elements in the hypothesized direction than any single profile. However, in contrast to the frequency and initiation components, larger size is a crucial characteristic in association with high intensity 167 :3 A8 SV SV 3 AHV E 5 Amy ROOH mma Rma Rma Rmm gmm awEmstHm peace ape: mmHQme< HH¢V mawpoa Hawhm>o A8 8v AHV 8v :5 E E &om hpfimCmpCH Edmm loam pQHOh swam hummGCmmmo swam Ammv eQOH 3 8V E E 5 2; g E gmm muHmCmch EsMw loam pcaow 30A hoCmocwme 30A wampoa mwsmq mmcsow mmpm>fism Haesm meHo meflaesm HNM—d‘LQKON-CD owsmq mwcsow mofiapsm HamEm MwCSOm mafiansm HHmSm mmcsow mmpm>fism mwsmq mcao mmpw>fism Hflesm meao mmee>eem awash meHo meeapsm muflm mmw¢ mwoofimmz¢ Nozm0¢ .mocmw¢ hp mmSmhmOMm pCHOh mo hpfimcmsz on» Spas hocmocmmwm HwCOHuoNHQmwso yo coapmHUOmm< ena nu mammspomzm map mo pcmcomSoo usage on» on soapsnfispcoo HHmQB was mmHHmosm oanmmpwoamn home¢ u .hm manna 168 Away eooe Amy eooa gov so Aev e0 on e0 on e0 Aev e0 AHV em Adv ema AHV em Ami gmm Aev emm Amy emm Ami mam “so ems AHV em Adv mooa Amy ewe mEmeOMm Hmpoe panes apex Amofiocmw< HH¢V mawppa Hawsm>o AHV on Ami Amv Aev .Amv Rma thmCmpCH Bme nosm pCHow swam mocmGCQOo swam Ammv on on Adv Amv Aev Amy Asa Amv mooa Re so \ w: Rma ea. Rma Rom mpamsmpCH Emsw Ionm chOh 30A hocmccmmmm 30A fleece woos pamspmosa Emaamcoammmwosm cwflm ”pamsw>flm 30g .m moo: prEpwmsB SmHHQCOHmmmwonm Boa hpamsmsfia 30A .m moo: psmEpmmsB EmHHmGOHmmmmosm 30A zpwmmm>flm zwflm .0 @602 m>HpSQprmflQ Emflawcoammmmonm 30a hpamsm>fim 30a .m @602 m>HpSQHspmHo EmHHmCOHmmmmosm swam spfimemsflm swam .4 @602 onEpdmpB amaHmQOHmmmmosm nwfim seememsem swam .m @602 psmapmmna EflmHmQOAmmmmosm swam hpfimhm>am 30a .m moo: m>ap5nflupmflm Emaamcoammovosm Bog seememsea swam .H xhoz mo moo: EmfiaocoammmmOQm mmopm hpflmum>wm moa>gmm II Nozmw< .zocmw¢ an mmSmswonm peach we mpHmCoch mnp Spa: mocmvcmmom Hmcoapmuacmwso mo coapmHOOmm¢ one I: pcmomEoo usage map on mQOHpSQHAono Aflmne use mmHHMOHm HmQOfipdtho hocmm¢ I .mm manse E] E 169 Joint Programs. Analysis: Organizational Dependency and Joint Program Intensity Among those twenty-five agencies engaging in Joint Programs, high intensity or commitment to their Joint Programs appears related at a modest level to high Organ- ' izational Dependency (See Table 26). This outcome is analogous to the first and second components in the sense that relative dependency is associated not only with Joint Program initiatives and frequency but also with agency transfer of power, authority, resources and other indicators of commitment to the joint activity. It is a logical extension, then, of the basic principle of the overall hypothesis that a perceived Organizational De- pendency -- whether it revolves around domain or resource needs and deficiencies -- is associated with agency will- ingness to share some of its autonomy, assume the risks of inter-agency commitment and decision-making, and to formalize the Joint delivery of some of its programs and services. However, beyond the frequency and initiation components, the intensity of the Joint Program commitment gauges the depth of inter-agency commitment to the Joint activity. The intensity factor measures agency willing- ness to grant or surrender some of its autonomy and con- trol in resource and program administration. To some degree, intensity also measures inter-agency confidence and trust as well as commitment. 170 In contrast to the tendency of private agencies to support the frequency component to a slight degree and initiation to a more decisive degree, public agencies are associated strongly with the intensity component. Though public agencies account for only 43% of all agen- . cies, they comprise 63% of high intensity agencies. Pri- L_‘ vate agencies, often perceiving Resource Dependency, may coalesce in a limited fashion in order to relieve an im- 9_ mediate resource deficiency. The Joint activity has a precise and limited purpose, and when the innovation or resource need becomes less pressing and possibly institu- tionalized, the Joint activity may be terminated. Thus, limited resources and purposes are related to limited commitment. Public agencies, somewhat in contrast, per- ceive a more durable, developmental, agency-wide and partially intangible Domain Dependency. If this depend- ency leads to Joint Program activity, the commitment is comparatively strong. The very nature of guaranteeing future domain through Joint Programs is a longer term effort and it is more total aggncy-related than merely resource-related. Therefore, more organizational level commitment is involved. In addition, recent public agency guidelines for shared decision-making and maximum use of existing services and facilities in the local com- munity create a pattern for high commitment to Joint Programs. 171 Among the eight agencies indicating high intensity commitment to Joint Programs: six are both old and high in diversity; five are public; five are large; four are public, old, large and high in diversity. These combinations of characteristics may intervene to either emphasize or suppress the public-private agency pattern discussed above. Organizational complexity aris- ing from age, high service diversity and larger size tends to multiply agency interfaces and sub-environments, generates more specialties and sub-units, induces addi- tional domain and resource needs, and thus, may support agency intensity of commitment to Joint Programs. A review of the correlations presented in Table 11 reveals agency auspices is unrelated to service diversity. How- ever, public agencies are significantly larger than pri- vate and are somewhat older. Therefore, size and to a lesser extent age appear to reinforce the high intensity- public agency association. Apart from the question of public or private auspices, combinations of either large size and high diversity or high diversity and high professionalism are correlated with high intensity commitment. High diversity, a char- acteristic common to all.high intensity agencies, indi- cates the importance of number and variety of services and resources to Joint Program intensity. A large number of programs and services generates more resources from 172 within the agency with which to engage in Joint Pro- grams and requires more resources from outside the agency. Either way, Joint Program intensity tends to be increased. Larger size and older status offer ad- tional support for the intensity factor, but at a con- siderably less influential level when compared to di- versity. Part IV - Summary and Overall Integpretation Introduction When the data from the hypothesis are analyzed, some understanding emerges of "why?" and "under what conditions?” does Joint activity take place. Therefore, this section presents agency characteristics and pro- files that are associated with Joint Program involve- ment. Then, an analysis follows proposing possible agency rationales for Joint Programs or the lack of them. Summary Table 29 presents the relative impact of agency characteristics, alone or in combination, on the three components of the hypothesis. Older status and high service diversity emerge as such relatively strong cor- relates of the hypothesis that they have a higher per- centage agreement than other characteristics even when combined. High service diversity is in 100% agreement with both initiation and intensity of Joint Programs, and therefore is a stronger and more consistent trait Amv gmm Asv Rem Amv mam swflHeQOHmmemoem mmepm use seememsem meeem swam Amv &mo sz &wm Amy Rmm hpflmsm>flm moa>mmm swam use mwhmq Adv &om Aqv Rsm Amv mmm BmHHmQOHmmomonm myopm swam one use sz Rom Amy Rae Amv emm gee: go wees mswpspfiepmea Amv gem Amv was Amy gmm meoemmsa mee>wem Amv ems Adv gem Aev mam smeaecowmmemoem steam ewes Amv Rmo sz me ANV Rnw mwpmg & _ o hpamsm>fim U Go e3 g be :3 \bme 823m 6E as So 1 flow ems Amv gem Amv gmm eHo Amy mooa Aev eOOH AOHV mam spamsmseo eoessmm swam mm: sus Han: NflfimCmpCH coapmeHCH honosthm Emsmosm pCHOh swam Emswosm ucHoh spas Emswosm pGHOb swam seamecmamm nwsm senesceemo swam seameceamm ewem moHemHmmeoamamo wozmua unmcomsmb chase pcmcomaoo Ucooom pcmcomgoo pmsflh. pamam>ao>cH Esswosm pcfloh swam In heCmocmmmm swam .zocow¢ an mpcmcom neoo mesmsvmsm map Spa: pcmsmmswd Rom mo adeficaz m wcapomawmm muowpmc nansoo one mofipmfismpowpdno Ham mmpsaosH mmHmmnpoazm esp Mo mpCmcomSoo mmHnB map Spas pcmsmmsw¢ mwmpcmosmm gamma use moapmasmpomnwso mesmwd 1 .mm magma 174 than is age. Older age status is related somewhat more to initiation than it is to either frequency or intensity of Joint Programs. When the influence of size and staff professionalism are examined, the opposite phenomenon occurs; i.e., larger sized agencies with high staff pro- fessionalism tend to be higher in frequency and intensity than they are in the initiation of Joint Programs. Aside from service diversity, then, frequency and intensity of involvement are highly correlated with each other for age, size and staff professionalism while Joint Program initiation is somewhat less correlated with the other two. The initiation of Joint Programs departs still fur- ther from the other two relationships with regard to auspices and mode of work. Private agencies with a dis- tributive mode of work tend to initiate Joint Programs at a considerably higher rate than they either involve themselves in Joint Programs or commit themselves inten- sively. In contrast to the other two components, private status and a distributive mode are more salient elements of the initiation component than are larger size or high staff professionalism. Moreover, though positively re- lated to frequency and initiation, private status is negatively related to intensity. Conversely, then, pub- lic agencies reflect 45% frequency, only 29% initiation, and fully 63% intensity. Therefore, agency auspices and mode of work account for the only notable differences that arise among the three components. '7] 175 Table 30 portrays the agency profiles that are asso- ciated with the three components. The strongest associa- tion is between public, old and large agency status on the one hand and a high intensity of Joint Program com- mitment on the other. This same profile also has the largest input into the frequency component. However, a bi—modal pattern appears when components of the hypothe- sis are compared. Thus, agencies that initiate Joint Programs have a 43% chance of being pgivate, old and gmgll. Since this latter profile has over 25% incidence for each of the three components, it is clearly an alter- nate profile in support of the hypothesis. It is note- worthy that old and small private agencies tend to ini- tiate Joint Programs at a significantly higher rate than the old and large public agencies; however, the latter profile is twice as important as the former in intensity of commitment. Among operational profiles, the high diversity-low professionalism-distributive-type agency reflects the strongest positive association with Joint Program ini- tiation. This particular profile also has a slight edge over others in contributing to all three components of the hypothesis. When the six demographic and operational character- istics are considered together, there is no overall agency profile with a frequency exceeding one. When Joint Program frequency is combined with initiation, 176 Amy mam Amv gmm Amv mew wees weepsnwspmem IEmHHmCOHmmmwosm swam -spfimsmswm swam Amv gmm Amy gmm Amv gem wees pcmseeese uEmHHmcoammomosm swam uspwmemsem seem Amv gmm Amv em: Amv gem wees weepspeepmwm uEmHHGQOHmmmwosm sounsuememsem :wsm Amv gmm Amv mm: Amy Rem Haesmneao-meeseem may mom Amv gmm Aev Rem mwseq-eao-oeansm mus Nu: Han: mpflmCmch coaumeHcH pawsm>fio>cH Emswosm pQHOh swam sapwosm uQflOh zpflz Ewswomm pCHOh swam sosmmseamm,swam socemmeema,nwmm, seemecmemm seem mqumomm wozmoa pcmcomSoo chase unecommoo accomm pcmcomsoo pmsflm meSm>Ho>cH EmngMA pQth swam II hoCmvchmQ swam .homed an mpCmGOQSOO mocmswmsm 62p Spas pcoSmme¢ fimm mo ESEHCHE m wcflpomawmm mmaauosm hocmw< Had mmudfioCH mmucosom .quo mmsgB map npflz pcmamosm¢ mmmpcoosom HHwSB was moHHmonm hocow¢ I .om wands 177 however, the single profile with a frequency of two is the old and small private agency with high diversity and professionalism and a distributive mode. Overall Interpretation Public as well as private agencies appear to follow a bi-modal pattern in associating their relative depend- ency levels with either high or low Joint Program fre- quency, initiation, or intensity. Thus, an analysis of the data supports the conclusion that one group of public agencies manages its dependency with Joint program activ- ity; another group does not coalesce programs or services with other agencies, and thus may manage dependency with domain consensus alone. In addition, public agencies initiate Joint Programs at a considerably lgfleg average level than do private agencies; yet at the same time, their frequency is comparable and their intensity of commitment is considerably stronger. Whether large or small, then, the young public agency indicates a high Domain Dependency; however, the data confirms that this agency type fails to go beyond any domain consensus into Joint Program activity. Since this group of public agencies already often has money and a legislative mandate for its role, a consensus of community support for reaching clients, establishing credibility and obtaining supportive services, is appro- priate. Domain consensus accomplishes this goal, and therefore, this organizational strategy can serve as a 178 precondition of Joint Program activity. If a public agency finds it possible to attain con- sensus without a real surrender of power or autonomy, it is successfully pursuing an environmental strategy of formal cooptation. Here, as Selznick (1949) had empha- sized, no central decision-making power is sacrificed and therefore there is no substantive transfer or sharing of power with environmental elements. Yet, the organization benefits from structured lines of communications and feedback from the relevant environments and the protec- tive ”coloration” and support afforded by community boards and advisory committees. Admittedly, the appearance and structure of shared authority over a long period of time may lead to a pea; sharing of power. Increased age, size and service diver- sity may also induce a perception of Resource Dependency to reinforce the agency's need to continually maintain and renew its domain consensus. The data indicate that this pattern fits another group of public agencies ~- the older and larger public agencies with high diversity -- and this type of agency has a high frequency partici- pation in Joint Programs. I The older and larger public agency in the community begins both to resemble and to complement the old line private human service agency. It begins to resemble the private in its gradual acceptance of community values and norms, rules of inter-agency relations, attitudes 179 of its personnel, its operational procedures, and its approach to service delivery. The public agency, in bar- gaining for continued local consensus, also is motivated to increasingly complement and support private agency efforts in service delivery. Among these efforts, Joint Programs and other forms of program cooperation become appropriate and appealing for the public agency. More- over, high diversity and larger size generate both resource deficiencies and resource surpluses. Thus, these agencies perceive Joint Programs as a means to obtain needed external resources for program and service delivery; at the same time, they are able to utilize un- needed internal resources more efficiently in the more varied inter-agency delivery system. These older, larger and more diverse public agencies do not initiate Joint Programs as frequently as do private agencies; however, their intensity of commitment is much stronger when they age involved. The larger size and high service diversity of these agencies helps explain the high intensity commitment. The low initiation appears to relate to the fact that Resource Dependency among private agencies is a stronger spur to initiate Joint Programs than is Domain Dependency among public agencies. Resource dependency is short term, immediate, compelling_and directly related to service delivery. Domain dependency is a longer term, community support phenomenon which is indirectly related to progyams and services. 1H 180 Private agencies stand out even more decisively in a bi-modal pattern: the small and old private agency that indicates high dependency and high Joint Program frequency and initiation, and to a lesser extent inten- sity; and the small and young private agency that per- ceives low dependency and low Joint Program frequency and initiation. The small and old private agency already possesses a strong domain consensus in the community and it is moved to initiate and participate in Joint Programs on the basis of resource needs for innovation or egpansion rather than for communipy acceptance and support. How- ever, both because of smaller size and specific resource needs, these private agencies have a less intense commit- ment to their Joint Programs. Generally, these agencies tend to have high diversity, but show a mixed pattern in professionalism level. A distributive mode of work is highly associated with Joint Program initiation, and the level of association is identical to that of private auspices with a distributive mode. Private agencies that are distributive would tend to perceive the need for inter-agency links for treatment support and follow- up. In general, the distributive agency perceives inter- agency dependency more crucially than the treatment agency as the former often measures progress on the 'basis of effective referrals and access to support facilities. 181 This private agency pattern adheres to the Aiken and Hage construct of Joint activity for the purpose of obtaining resources for innovations and to meet the in- creasing needs of agency complexity and diversity. The private agency pattern is the young and small private agency with low service diversity, low staff profession- alism and a distribute mode. This pattern reflects low dependency and low Joint Program activity. The combina- tion of private status, small size and low diversity appear strong elements in support of resource independ- ence. Older age and high diversity are consistently the highest correlates of Joint Program activity, and these agencies are on the opposite end of the continuum -- with less age and diversity. Thus, youthful age tends to indicate few slack or surplus resources for exchange, a concentration on internal policies and operations, an unwillingness to surrender autonomy until more organiza- tional confidence and stability evolves, and a dearth of inter-agency knowledge and community contacts. Low ser- vice diversity reinforces these factors in that it indi- cates narrow agency objectives, often a concentrated and stable client population, and little need for inter- agency coalition. Across both public and private agencies, therefore, Resource Dependency appears a stronger motivation toward Joint Programs than Domain Dependency. Though Resource Dependency is more prevalent among private agencies, both 182 public and private agencies appear tQ_perceive it as a pre-condition to Joint activity. On the other hand, Domain Dependeney appears to be rather neutral to Joint activipy and to serve as a substitute for the Joint Progpams as often as it leads to them. However, when the public agency does commit itself it does so more intensely than does the private. This outcome may not only be associated with the larger size of public agen- cies, but also with the fact that the inter-agency trust_generated through domain consensus has overcome inter-ageney restraint and supported a fuller commit- ment of the agency. Though high service diversity and older status are the characteristics that are closely associated with Joint Program frequency, initiation and intensity, a less obvious fact emerges from analysis of the hypothe- sized relationship. The private and distributive type agency is associated considerably more with the initia- tion of Joint Programs than it is with frequency or intensity. This outcome emphasizes that Joint Program initiatives come from non-mandated, resource-dependent and high-complexity agencies in the more competitive sector of our economy. Thus, the pressure of competi- tion and the press for innovation appears to induce inter-agency activity. This activity occurs as a result both of intra-agency sub-system competition and inter-agency community delivery system competition. 183 High diversity feeds on additional resources, both inter- nally and externally. The distributive mode of work fortifies the propensity to engage in Joint Programs based on a perceived external dependency related to the servicing Job itself. When these characteristics are combined -- private, high diversity, distributive status -- agency association with Joint Programs is strong indeed. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS The Original Purpose This research represented one phase in a multi-step sequence of empirical studies of local human service agencies. An ultimate goal of the series of studies was to provide planners and administrators with reliable in- formation for the design of human or social service pro- grams for an entire urban area rather than specialized segments of the population. Effective and efficient community-wide delivery of services, then, served as the criterion that unified the series of research phases. The immediate obJective of the empirical studies was to specify the conditions under which public and private human service agencies integrate and coordinate their resources into a community delivery system. In practi- cal terms, the researcher hoped to assess the feasibil- ity of a multi-services center concept and to increase the efficiency of client servicing. The cooperation of the United Way and its member agencies in the community enabled the research team to perform the studies empir- ically. The specific phase of the empirical studies that is covered in this research involved the measurement 181+ 185 and analysis of agency characteristics, dependency and Joint Program activity. Data from these factors were to increase understanding of "why?" and "under what con- ditions?" interorganizational cooperation took place. In turn, an understanding of the correlates and possible causes of inter—agency cooperation and Joint activity assists in answering the four questions posed in the Introduction. They were: 1. How do individual agencies that have grown in specialization, professional compe- tencies, and autonomy, react to a chang- ing environment that appears to require negotiation, coordination, and possibly coalitions with other agencies? 2. Are these agencies inclined toward compe- tition and conflict or cooperation and Joint activity in their inter-agency relations? 3. What specific agency characteristics and conditions are associated with Joint Program activity? 4. Are inter-agency cooperation and coali- tions compatible with agency pursuit of organizational effectiveness? In order to measure and attempt to answer these questions, the survey instrument and research design provided for an analytical breakdown of agency characteristics, relative levels of agency dependency, and Joint Program activity (whether frequency, initiation, or intensity was involved). The agency characteristic of private versus public auspices ‘was examined more specifically, and its correlates and in- fluence were analyzed and interpreted in more detail than were the other characteristics. 186 Interorganizational theory, both in general and spe- cific to the research problem, was reviewed, evaluated and linked to the research obJectives. The theoretical purpose involved the use of the case study approach to analyze organizational characteristics 5 and interorganizational relations within a descriptive Lin, research framework. In this way, the researcher planned to extend empirically organizational classification and ea” comparison systems, common organizational terminology and attributes for interorganizational research, and a re- search design and methodology amenable to extension and replication. Theoretical Basis The theoretical framework supporting the research direction is based on streams of thought and theory de- velopment from social psychology, economics, organiza- tional sociology and psychology, and the administrative sciences. The concepts include: exchange theory; power and control, and its balancing with environmental agents; organizational-environmental interaction for both effec- tiveness and resources; and cooperative or competitive models for interorganizational relations. Essentially, the question posed in the research design is: Are cooperation and coordination among human service agencies feasible and mutually advantageous in the particular community studied? In general, inter- :organizational and economic theory is negative to these 187 outcomes unless competition for scarce resources and favorable exchanges dictates the cooperation. Utilizing this theoretical rationale, Aiken and Hage (1968) related key internal variables -- organizational complexity, innovation, communication, de-centralization and low é formalization -- to Joint Program activity among health B“, and welfare agencies. They concluded from their empir- ical evidence that increases in division of labor stim- ex- ulate complexity and innovation, and the need for resources to support such innovations promotes interdependent rela- tions with other organizations -- namely, Joint Programs. This dissertation posed two dependency models in order to explain interorganizational cooperation in the form of Joint Programs. The Resource Dependency or "Innovation" Model builds on the Aiken and Hage rationale in which cooperation and competition are integrated within the same framework. Thus, in pursuing goals for internal effectiveness, organ- izational sub-units differentiate increasingly from each other and internal diversity is heightened. Innovation evolves out of the diversity as subsystems compete, and Resource Dependency develops as the organization seeks resources to fuel the innovations. Resource exchange through formalized commitments such as Joint Programs is an attractive alternative for overcoming the resource deficiency at a relatively low cost in organizational autonomy. 188 The Domain Dependency or “Consensus” Model evolves principally from the Selznick, Levine and White, and Thompson concepts of cooptation and domain. Therefore, in pursuit of environmental adaptation for external effectiveness, the organization seeks power and control in its task and contextual environments. Interorgani- zational or environmental power is attained by the estab- lishment and extension of the organizational domain. In order to effectively assert domain, the organization seeks to secure a consensus for its functions and goals among agents in its relevant environment. However, in managing its environmental dependency through domain consensus, the organization acquires a Domain Dependency. This problem occurs because the continuation of domain is dependent on continued agreement or consensus from environmental agents. The focal organization may then attempt to diminish or control the dependency by coop- tation (Selznick, 1949), or overcome it through inter- agency coalitions such as Joint Programs. It was proposed in this research that Organization- al Dependency, whether in the form of Resource or Domain Dependency, would tend to lead to Joint Programs. Fur- ther, it was posited that public agencies tended to evolve into Domain Dependency and private agencies tended to experience Resource Dependency. 189 Practical Basis The research is intended to develop more systematic and useful information for people in public policy and community decision positions in order to raise the effi- ciency and effectiveness of human service delivery in the community. Presumably, an important step in this direc- tion involves the cooperation and coordination of local agencies, and sometimes the integration and Joint deliv- ery of their programs and services. The need appears crucial to coordinate and unify at the implementation level the myriad legal, legislative and budgeting initia- tives for programs and services that originate at higher levels of government or private organizations. If the largely autonomous human service agencies in communities do not develop coordinated and integrated systems for program delivery, their resources and services will often be inefficiently utilized and distributed. A failure at the operational level due to an information and coordi- nation vacuum or barrier not only deprives clients of services but also may unfairly discredit the agency and the program. Moreover, efficiencies achieved through increased inter-agency cooperation not only make the cost and benefit comparison more favorable but they also add to system credibility and service penetration into the community. On a long term basis, agencies in the community may expect increasingly scarce dollars and resources generally 190 to divide within the community. Thus, local officials probably will feel pressured to utilize the economies of integration and coordination of service delivery for efficiency and decision rationality. Finally, human service agencies are growing in num- bers and influence in this country, and they are increas- ingly typical of organizational prototypes. For example, j "Hal-n I I among their attributes are the following characteristics that are growing in importance: 1. their collegial structure, with professional, technical and administrative personnel pri- marily; 2. the composition of their personnel in terms of largely white collar, almost entirely service-producing and with a large per- centage of women; 3. their non-profit character; 4. their private and public interface and (often) integration of planning, funding, servicing and evaluation; 5. their focus in the area of "helping” occupa- tions, a Job area that is growing rapidly. Theoretical Implications of the Data The integration of competition and cooperation in the same model -- envisioned by Aiken and Hage -- appears operative in the interorganizational relations of human service agencies in this case study. Thus, the rationale for inter-agency cooperation and coordination appears to be competitive advantage. This advantage is attained and maintained through favorable inter-agency exchanges for scarce and valued resources. Thus, the foundation 191 laid by Homan's exchange theory and Levine and White's element exchange with other agencies for goal achieve- ment appear relevant and appropriate among the human service agencies in this community. Agency awareness of community and inter-agency allo- cation of scarce resources and the competitive realities associated with this perception, then, incites the agency to Joint activity. Individual agencies react to rival agency attempts to gain favored positions competitively by differentiating and innovating their programs and services. In turn, this internal activity leads to more symbiotic relations with other agencies. As a result, resource needs between agencies are complementary and Joint Programs are both appealing and profitable to the agencies concerned. The process by which this pattern occurs appears to confirm the Aiken and Hage competition-cooperation model. The Resource Dependency perceived by coalescing private agencies supports the concept that geal achieve- ment and environmental advantage for agencypgrowth in- spire the inter-agency cooperation rather than client needs, service rationality or community-wide servicing imperatives. Thus, agency perceptions of scarce funds and sponsors, scarce professionals, scarce legal status, scarce clients, and even scarce programs and services to be allocated among agencies, results in inter-agency cnaoperation based on economic competition. In turn, 192 agencies associate their effectiveness with the ease and favorableness of the exchanges for the scarce and valued resources. Aiken and Hage's relating of these exchanges with agency innovation and internal complex- ity and differentiation appears to be supported for the private agencies in particular. Thus, as Aldrich has confirmed, the cumulative effect of research and theo- rizing for the past decade has been the development of a resource dependence model of organization-environment interaction. Public agencies, in contrast, adhere to a somewhat different theoretical path. The domain consensus con- ceptualized and tested by Levine and White and later confirmed conceptually by Thompson, as a precondition for Joint exchanges and activityygrepresents a substi- tute as well as a facilitator for Joint Program involve- 'mep£, Analogous to the Selznick concept of formal coop- tation, domain consensus may obtain environmental support for agency functions and goals at little or no cost in autonomy. Successful cooptation and its maintenance may entirely obviate the need for Joint activity possibly until a Resource Dependency actually materializes. Thus, the theory of domain consensus in terms of its direct association with interorganizational activity and particularly Joint Programs may be misleading. Unless certain intervening factors are present, domain consensus may be a desirable and viable organizational 193 state in itself. What factors would tend to stimulate public agencies to translate domain consensus into Joint activity? Two patterns may result in inter-agency cooperation. If the agency is relatively large and complex in both services and staff professionals, domain consensus may lead to Joint Programs. Thus, large agencies with high diversity and high professionalism greatly increase propensities to engage in Joint Programs whether the agency is private or public. And, if the public agency is both domain and resource dependent to a degree, Joint activity may ensue. Therefore, the agency may perceive Domain Dependency and seek a domain consensus either to manage the depend- ency or as an intermediate step toward inter-agency activ- ity; or the agency may perceive domain and resource‘lpge- pendence and refrain from any Joint activity. In any event, the agencies do not view inter-agency cooperation and Joint Programs as an appriori good. Instead, the perception of dependency motivates them to seek consensus and/or Joint Programs in order to manage, control, limit and predict future dependency. As the data findings attest, agencies perceiving leg dependency tend not to coalesce with other agencies regardless of the virtues and ultimate advantages to the community that may be present. Since the competition for scarce and needed resources is the key to the cooperative mode, the Joint Programs continue as long as the dependency is recognized L. 194 and outweighs the price paid in reduced autonomy. Certain assumptions and hypotheses of Aiken and Hage appear confirmed by the data. They include: 1. the association of organizational diver- sity with innovation which in turn creates Resource Dependency, and there- fore, a need for Joint Programs to gain necessary resources; 2. organizational tendencies to maximize gains and minimize losses in obtaining resources; 3. heightened interdependence is associated with internal diversity; and 4. a high decree of complexity varies directly with a high number of Joint Programs. In this research, the dichotomizing of dependency into resource and domain related, and the association of these dependencies principally with private and public agencies respectively, helps explain the rationale for the results, and this distinction may be helpful for future studies in inter-agency relations. The multi- component index of inter-agency commitment through Joint Program intensity extends the work of Reid in detailing levels of coordination and may serve as a departure point for future Joint Program intensity levels. Finally, the profiles of agency characteris- tics and their typical modes, their relationships to each other and to the hypothesis posed, furnish one empirical reality of human service agencies. These profiles and individual characteristics serve as test- able and replicable variables and relationships for 195 additional case studies, and eventually for more system- atic and comparative organizational research in the future. Practical Implications of the Data The economics of competition and scarcity of re- sources appear to be stronger agency motivations or pre-conditions for inter-agency cooperation than are community acceptance and consensus in support of the agency role or the effective satisfaction of client needs, or the welfare and advancement of community- wide service delivery or even agency survival in the lppg_run. Competition, usually for scarce and valued resources in the environment, is a more substantial reality for organizational effectiveness than is coop- eration for client and community effectiveness. 3;; the absence of profit margins, the human service agen- cy's criterion for progress and success is the growth and proliferation of programs and clients often at the expense of other agencies. Size and diversity tend i to offer institutional security and a perception that the agency is getting a larger slice of the pie vis-a- vis its competitors. Organizational Dependency, then, is associated with inter-agency cooperation in the form of Joint Programs but in a somewhat different way than expected from the theory development. Resource Dependency ap- pears to be a notably stronger correlate of Joint 196 Program initiation and activity than is Domain Dependency. The rationaleifgr and the effects pngomain Dependency and consensus correspond to Selznick's formal cooptation. This environmental activity represents less a transfer of control or decision-making to the environment than it does a strategy for goal attainment and environmental adaptation with no substantive loss of autonomy. The attainment of domain consensus by the public agency es- pecially furnishes a sufficient appearance of cooperation and integration with the community that Joint Program activity may become superfluous for agency purposes. Domain consensus in the form of community boards and advisory groups then substitutes for inter-agency coali- tions for Joint service delivery. For example, the Co- operative Extension Service or the State Employment Ser- vice may solicit advice and constitute advisory boards, but they may not seek or participate in Joint Programs unless and until a Resource Dependency supplements their perceived need for domain consensus. On the other hand, when public agencies that per- ceive Domain Dependency g2 coalesce with other agencies, they indicate high intensity commitment to Joint Pro- grams. This outcome is probably related both to their larger average size and to the contact and trust already established through consensus structures and agents. Public and private agencies do differ perceptibly, then, in the dependency perceived and in organizational 197 response to the perception. Joint Program initiation is strongly associated with older, highly diverse private agencies; Joint Program intensity of commitment is asso- ciated especially with older, larger and highly diverse public agencies; and high frequency of Joint Programs is associated with 223p public and private agencies. However, private agency status is a more substantial factor in the findings because a number of low depend- ency private agencies are highly correlated with the low Joint Program frequency. Thus, a sub-group of pri- vate agencies perceive both domain and resource ipge- pendence. They are the older, smaller, and less diverse private agencies that are relatively stable and secure in resource support and clients. To an extent therefore, public and_private agencies have and mutually_perceive a symbiotic relationship_in their inter-agency_relations. The public tends to pos- sess domain and to seek resources. The extent of the Joint Program activity depends uppn how essential and non-substitutable are the resource or domain needs in the agency's pursuit of its own effectiveness. Older age status and high diversity then represent the best correlates of Joint Program frequency, initia- tion and intensity among agencies. Older agencies often have valued and slack resources for exchange, agency confidence and coalition experience, a secure funding base, and often, resource depth for potential exchanges. 198 The number of services and increased complexity of high diversity agencies create multiple interactions with sub-environfnents, multiplied and expanded resouce needs, more differentiation and innovation, and a pressure for environmentally available resources. When older age and high service diversity are combined, their strength and consistency in sustaining the hypothesis in this research tend to override other agency characteristics. Since market competition and perceptions of resource scarcity are dominant elements of inter-agency behavior, Joint Prqgrams evolve as cooperative in form and content but competitive and directed toward market advantage in intent and motivation. If this market motivation is recognized and dealt with by agencies or individuals who are attempting to unify delivery systems or improve client service in the community, then considerably more hope exists for inter-agency cooperation. For example, in encouraging inter-agency cooperation, a community fed- eration or the united Way would stress resource and market advantages of Joint Programs rather than community welfare, client benefits or servicing efficiencies. Fur- ther, groups committed to increased integration of human services would underscore the rigidities, survival prob- lems, and competitive disadvantages, and the insecure organizational future, associated with either Resource or Domain Dependency. In this way, change agents and community integrative organizations are responding_to J XL‘V" _ ‘- (”"11 199 egency perceptions of reality instead of operating from their own a priori or rational version of agency reality. In line with this thinking, the domain consensus sought by public agencies would be viewed as a strategy for inJecting the agency into the community service delivery scheme permanently rather than an idealized shared decision system for client and community input. The Resource Dependency that leads to Joint Programs pri- marily among private agencies would be viewed as an at- tempt to maintain or enhance market position rather than improve program relevance or client servicing. In turn, the new Joint Program then may attract scarce and mobile professionals into an agency's orbit, and further, create new agency expertise for other programs or possibly "go- ing it alone" in the future. Community integration organizations may utilize two other helpful strategies for increasing coalitions. The first would be the highlighting and facilitating of the symbiotic relationships possible between public and pri- vate agencies, between treatment and distributive types, and between professional and non-professionally oriented agencies. The complementary roles that are possible have advantageous implications for both agencies in each of these cases. Secondly, the real possibility of a larger resource pie to split rather than a static level of total re- sources in the community may motivate the agencies ”A.“ - "elu. b h Q" 8 ‘ '1! A F3159, Fm 203 toward increased coordination and cooperation. Thus, an expanding market of available funds, professionals, cli- ents and service needs may expand agency thinking beyond assumptions about the existing market. A strong dose of reality therapy for community plan- ners and agency administrators alike would be a priority for the more effective coordination of human service de- livery in the community. This reality would recognize the agency's need for success criteria and community- recognized measures comparable to profit margins and market positions in private industry. Limitations of the Research The phenomena discussed and predicted principally are within a short run framework. Therefore, it is dif- ficult to be confident about the relative persistence or variability of the characteristics and patterns over long periods of time. Further, the relatively small number of agencies and their individual idiosyncratic characters prevented a more intensive and analytical breakdown of characteristics and component variables. For example, wide differences existed among agencies in size, age, nature of programs, administrative structure, affilia- tions, and level of dependency. The matrix of these characteristics defied specific patterns to a notable degree. The researcher becomes aware of the complexities and interventions of multiple factors in the tracing of 201 organizational-level patterns and behavior. In the rare instances in which a cause-effect pattern appears clear, the timing and intensity of the components are subJect to doubt. Therefore, conclusions are to be regarded as general points of departure for future research. As a __ case study in the relatively new area of interorganiza- tional relations, the research emphasis is on developing common variables and a replicable design for future studies. R V . n. Directions for Future Research Local human service agencies represent an increas- ingly prevalent form of organization in our country, and their relative importance has grown rapidly. Yet, most case studies and comparative organization research have involved the more traditional industrial organization -- product-producing, predominantly blue collar, private enterprise, and often exceptionally large. Future organ- izations will tend to be service oriented, largely white collar, sometimes in private and public partnership, and composed of a mixture of scientific, professional and technical employees. Further, local autonomy and de- centralization of large organizations are making the smaller, autonomous agency at the community level more typical. Therefore, the emphasis in empirical research 1 The Assumptions sub-section in Chapter III, Part I, lists the limitations inherent in the research design and the empirical setting. 1 ;. g" 202 should acknowledge this trend and more resources should be put into these types of organizations. In terms of methodology, longitudinal studies at the organizational level as well as at the sub-system level are needed. The legitimacy and value of individ- ual, small group and department level research has been long established; but the treatment of the organization itself as researchable and not merely the sum of compo- nent studies of its parts is essential. It is increasingly important to factor in and eval- uate contextual factors of organizations in addition to the more immediate task environment factors when research- ing organizational-level and interorganizational phenom- ena. The more porous organization boundaries and the multiplied interfaces between organization and community agents and institutions demand a more scientific appraisal and measurement of contextual factors. This approach is more realistic in that it acknowledges the changing values in the organization-community relationship. For example, environmental and consumer concerns have given rise to both an organizational presence in the community and also, a pervasive effect on the community image of organizational responsibility and responsiveness. In time, this community value induces organizational infor- mation-sharing and eventually, decision-sharing with community elements. 203 In researching organizations, both a quantitative comparative and an inductive, case study approach are necessary. The former method systematizes variables and multiplies inferences by an analytical breakdown of system characteristics and the study of precise and limited organizational characteristics in large numbers and over a period of time. The case study approach is needed for an understanding of the total reality of the on-going organization and its uniquely system-wide and system-level phenomena. Valuable perspective could be added to inductive-type case studies if the organizations could be standardized for comparisons according to £2252 ofpgrowth. In the non-profit and profit-oriented service organ- izations, research is needed to understand and cope with the relationship of self-regarding organizational propen- sities toward goal displacement, goal succession and oligarchy on the one hand and the organizational motiva- tion to de-centralize decisions, respond to client or customer need, and to compete effectively in meeting those needs. This paradox of organizational behavior may be mediated and resolved by the market reality of competition for scarce resources and the cooperative modes that may flow from competitive considerations. These patterns merit further empirical exploration. More interorganizational research should be pur- sued in which the concepts of micro and macro economics, 204 political science and ecological psychology and sociol- ogy are integrated with the more accepted and traditional disciplines in organizational studies. For example, economic concepts of competition and scarcity and eco- logical principles of community influence and power, run both have relevance. The organizational and environ- ' mental concepts of domain, domain consensus, dependency 5 and Joint Programs, also are useful in pursuing system- ; atic interorganizational research. ij 1 In research content, more attention should be paid to the environmental context of organizations and of the community. An obJective such as an effective, com- munity-wide, social service delivery system involves extra-organizational and unstructured processes that must be researched directly rather than as fallout or by-products of organizational behavior. As Emery and Trist have pointed out, the environments that surround organizations are increasingly turbulent and unpredict- able. For the empirical researcher, even the unpredict- able must be fitted into a predictable framework when causal or contaminating forces are at work. In this way, even hazardous and hedged predictions contain more validity because they embrace a more comprehensive reality. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Aiken, Michael, and Hage, Jerald. "Organizational Inter- dependence and Intraorganizational Structure.” American Sociological Review, XXXIII (December, 1968), 912-930. Aiken, Michael, and Alford, Robert R. ”Community Struc- ture and Innovation: The Case of Urban Renewal.” American Sociolqgical Review, XXXV (August, 1970), 650-666. Aldrich, Howard. "Organizational Boundaries and Inter- organizational Conflict.” Human Relations, XXIV (August, 1971). 279-293. Aldrich, Howard. ”An Organization-Environment Perspective on Cooperation and Conflict in the Manpower Training System." Conflict and Power in Complex Organiza- tions. Edited by Anant Negandhi. Kent, Ohio: C.K.R.I., Kent State University, 1972. Argyris, Chris. Integrating the Individual and the Organ- ization. New York: JothWiley & Sons, 1964. Bates, Frederick L., and Bacon, Lloyd. "The Community as a Social System.” Social Forces, L (March, 1972) 371-379. Benson, J. Kenneth; Kunce, J.; Thompson, C.; and Allen, D. Coordinatinnguman Services: A Sociological Stugy of an InterorganizationaI Network. Columbia, Mis- souri: University ofIMissouri, Regional Rehabili- tation Research Institute, 1973. Benson, J. Kenneth. "The Interorganizational Network as a Political Economy." Paper presented to the Research Committee on Organizations, I.S.A. Toronto, Canada, August 1974. Black, Bertram J” and Kase, Harold M. "Interagency Coop- eration in Rehabilitation and Mental Health.” Social Service Review, XXXVII (March, 1963), 26-32. Blau, Peter M. The Dynamics of Bureaucraey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955 and 1963. 205 206 Blau, Peter M. ”Orientation Toward Clients in a Public Welfare Agency.” Administrative Science Quarterly, V (January, 1960), 341-361. Blau, Peter M. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1964. Blau, Peter M. Bureaucracy in Modern Society. 2nd ed. New York: Random House, 1971. r-q‘ Blau, Peter M. "Interdependency and Hierarchy in Organi- 5 E zations." Social Science Research, I (April, 1972), E n 1-2140 ' Blau, Peter M., and Schoenherr, Richard A. The Structure _____ of Organizations. New York: Basic Books, 1971. j? Blau, Peter M. and Scott, W. Richard. Formal Organiza- L? tions: A Comparative Approach. San Francisco: Chandler PuinShing Go.,ll962. Braito, Rita; Paulson, Steve; and Klonglon, Gerald. "Domain Consensus: A Key Variable in Interorgani- zational Analysis." Complex Organizations and Their Environments. Edited By MerlIn7BrInkerhoff and PhillipJKunz. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown & Co., 1972. Brinkerhoff, Merlin, and Kunz, Phillip, eds. Complex Organizations and Their Environments. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm.‘C. Brown & Co., 1972. Burgess, Ernest W., and Bogue, Donald J. Contributions to Urban Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Burns, Tom, and Stalker, G. M. The Management of Inno- vation. London: Tavistock Publications, 1961 and 1965. Caplow, Theodore. Principles of Orgenization. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964. Chandler, Alfred. Strategy and Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1962. Clark, Burton R. "Organizational Adaptation and Precar- ious Values." American Sociolcgical Review, XXI (June, 1956). 327-336; Clark, Burton R. "Interorganizational Relations in Education." Administrative Science Quarterly, X (September, 1965), 226-237. 207 Clark, Peter B., and Wilson, James Q. ”Incentive Systems: A Theory of Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly, VI (September, 1961), 129-166. Clark, Terry N. "Institutionalization of Innovations in Higher Education: Four Models.” Administrative Science Quarterly, XIII (June, 1968), l-25. Clark, Terry N. Community_Structure and Decision-Making: Comparative AnaIyses. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co.,‘I968. Crozier, Michel. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,7I964. Coleman, James S. "Relational Analysis: The Study of Social Organizations with Survey Methods.” Human Organization, XVII (Winter, 195 -59), 26-36. Coleman, James S. "Foundations for a Theory of Collec- tive Decisions.” American Journal of Sociology, LXI (May, 1966), 615-627. Crow, Gary. "Inter-agency Pooling of Resources to Estab- lish New Services.’ Mental Hygiene, LIV (January, 1970), 118-122. Cyert, Richard M., and March, James G. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: ’Prentice-Hall,_I963. Dill, William R. "Environment as an Influence on Mana- gerial Autonomy.” Administrative Science Quarterly, II (March, 1958), 4094443? Dill, William R. "The impact of Environment on Organiza- tional Development." Concepts and Issues in Admin- istrative Behavior. Edited by Sidney Mailick and Edward H.7Van Ness. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1962. Duncan, Robert B. "Multiple Decision-Making Structures in Adapting to Environmental Uncertaint : The Impact on Organizational Effectiveness.’ Human Relations, XXVI (June, 1973b 273-291. Duncan, Robert B. "Characteristics of Organizational Environments and Perceived Environmental Uncer- tainty." Administrative Science Quarterly, XVII (September, 1972), 313-326. 208 Eisenstadt, S. N. ”Bureaucracy, Bureaucratization, and Debureaucratization." Administrative Science Quarterly, IV (December, 1959), 302-320. Elling, Ray H., and Halebsky, Sandor. "Organizational Differentiation and Support: A Conceptual Frame- work.” Administrative Science Quarterly, VI (September, 1961),‘I8542O9. Emerson, Richard. ”Power Dependence Relations.” Ameri- 'rI? can Sociological Review, XXVII (February, 1962), i 31-40. . “. Emery, Fred B., and Trist, Eric L. ”The Causal Texture i of Organizational Environments." Human Relations, , XVIII (February, 1965), 21-32. ?.=’ Esman, Milton J. Administration and Development in ;j Malaysia. London: Cornell University Press, 1972. Etzioni, Amitai. Complex Organizations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, l96I. Evan, William M. ”The Organization-Set: Toward a Theory of Interorganizational Relations.” Approaches to Organization Design. Edited by James D7 Thompson. *Pittsburgh: *UnIVersity of Pittsburgh Press, 1966. Form, William H., and Rytina, Joan. "Ideological Beliefs on the Distribution of Power in the U.S." American Sociological Review, XXXIV (February, 1969), I9-30. Friesema, H. Paul. ”InterJurisdictional Agreements in Metropolitan Areas." Administrative Science Quar- terly, XV (June, 1970), 242-252. Guetzkow, Harold. "Interagency Committee Usage.” Public Administration Review, X (Summer, 1950), 190-196. Guetzkow, Harold. ”Relations Among Organizations.” Studies on Behavior in Organizations. Edited by 'Raymond V} Bbwers. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1966. Hage, Jerald, and Aiken, Michael. ”Relationships of Centralization to Other Structural Properties.”_ Administrative Science Quarterly, XII (June, 1967), 72-92. Hage, Jerald, and Aiken, Michael. Social Change in Com- plex Organizations. New York: Random House, 1970. 209 Hage, Jerald; Aiken; Michael; and Marrett, Cora Bagley. "Organization Structure and Communications.” American Sociological Review, XXXVI (October, 19717,‘860:871. Hall, Richard H. Organizations: Structure and Process. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1972. Hasenfeld, Yeheskel. ”People Processing Organizations." American Sociological Review, XXXVII (June, 1972), Hawley, Amos H. "Community Power and Urban Renewal Success.‘i American Journal of Sociology, LXVIII (January, 1963), ueéeu31. Hawley, Amos H., and Zimmer, Basil G. The Metropolitan Community: Its People and Government. BeverIy HiIIs, CaIifornia: Sage Publications, 1970. Hollister, David. ”Interorganizational Conflict: The Case of Police Youth Bureaus and the Juvenile Court.” Paper presented at the 65th Annual Meet- ing of the American Sociological Association, August, 1970. Homans, George C. ”Social Behavior as Exchange.” American Journal of Sociology, LXIII (May, l958), 5979606. Inkson, J. H. K.; Pugh, D. S.; and Hickson, D. J. "Organizational Context and Structure." Admin- istrative Science Quarterly, XV (September, I970), 318-329. Jacobs, David. ”Dependence and Vulnerability: An Exchange Approach to the Control of Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly,.XIX (March, 1974). 45-49. Janowitz, Morris. The Professional Soldier. New York: The Free Press,’l960. Johns, Ray E. and deMarche, David F. Community Organi- zation and Agency Responsibility. “New York: Asso- ciated Press, 195i. Katz, Daniel, and Kahn, Robert L. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: ‘John Wiley E Sons, 1966. Lawrence, Paul R., and Lorsch, Jay W. Organizations and Environment. Boston: Harvard University Press, 1967. 210 Lawrence, Paul R., and Lorsch, Jay W. ”Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration." Complex Organizations and Their Environments. Edited by Merlin Brinkerhoff and Phillip Kunza Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown & Co., 1972. Leadley, Samuel M. ”An Integrative Model: Cooperative Relations Among Organizations." Unpublished Paper presented at Rural Sociological Society, San Fran- cisco, California, August 28-29, 1969. Lefton, Mark, and Rosengren, William R. "Organizations and Clients: Lateral and Longitudinal Dimensions." American Sociological Review, XXXI (December, 1966), 802:510. Levine, Sol, and White, Paul E. ”Exchange as a Concep- tual Framework for the Study of Interorganizational Relationships.” Administrative Science Quarterly, V (March, 1961), 563L601. Levine, Sol, and White, Paul E. "The Community of Health Organizations.” Handbook of Medical Sociology. Edited by Howard E. Freeman, Sol Levine and Leo Reeder. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, 1963, 339-343. Levine, Sol; Paul, BenJamin D.; and White, Paul E. ”Community Interorganizational Problems in Provid- ing Medical Care and Social Services." American Journal of Public Health, LIII (August, I963), 1183411957 Lipset, Seymour M.; Trow, Martin; and Coleman, James S. Union Democracy. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1956. Litwak, Eugene. "Voluntary Associations and Neighborhood Cohesion." American Sociological Review, XXVI (April, 1961),'258-27l. Litwak, Eugene. ”Models of Bureaucracy that Permit Conflict.” American Journal of Sociology, LXVII (September, 1961), 177-184. Litwak, Eugene and Hylton, Lydia. "Interorganizational Analysis: A Hypothesis on Coordinating Agencies." Administrative Science Quarterly, VI (March, 1962), 395-420. 211 Litwak, Eugene, and Meyer, Henry F. ”A Balance Theory of Coordination Between Bureaucratic Organizations and Community Primary Groups.” Administrative Science Quarterly, XI (June, 1966), 31137. Litwak, Eugene, and Rothman, Jack. ”Towards the Theory and Practice of Coordination Between Formal Organ- izations.” Organizations and Clients. Edited by William R. Rosengren and MarkILefton. Columbus, Ohio: Charles R. Merrill, 1970. Loomis, Charles P. ”Tentative Types of Directed Social Change Involving Systemic Linkage.” Rural Sociol- pgy, XXIV (December, 1959), 383-390. Lorsch, Jay W. ”Environment, Organization and the Indi- vidual.‘l Speech prepared for the Comparative Admin- istration Research Conference, Kent State Univer— sity, Kent, Ohio, May l4-l6, 1970. Maniha, John, and Perrow, Charles. ”The Reluctant Organ- ization and the Aggressive Environment.‘l Adminis- trative Science Quarterly, X (September, 1965), 238-257. Mansfield, Roger. ”Bureaucracy and Centralization: An Examination of Organizational Structure." Adminis- trative Science Quarterly, XVIII (December, 1973), 4777-488. Marcus, Philip M. "Organizational Change." Unpublished Monograph. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, January, 1973. Marrett, Cora Bagley. ”On the Specification of Inter- organizational Dimensions.” Sociology and Social Research, LVI (October, l97l),83-99. Maurer, John, ed. Readings in Organization Theory: ,Qpen System Approaches. INew York: RandomiHouse, 1971. Merton, Robert. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, Illinois; The Free Press, 1949. Merton, Robert. Social Theory and Social Structure. Revised ed. GIencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957- Meyer, Marshall W. Bureaucratic Structure and Authority. New York: Harper and Row, 1972. 212 Miller, Delbert C. ”Design Strategies for Com arative International Studies of Community Power.’ Social Forces, LI (March, 1973), 261-274. Miller, Roger Emile. Innovationy Organization and Envi- ronment. Sherbrooke, France: Institut de Recherche et de Perf. en Adman., 1971. Mott, Basil J. F. Anatomy of a Coordinating Council: Implications for Planning. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh PYess, 1968. Mott, Basil J. F. ”Coordination and Interorganizational Relations in Health." Inter-Organization Research in Health, Conference Proceedings, JOhnRHEpkins University, National Center for Health Services Research and Development. Baltimore, Maryland, January, 1971. Negandhi, Anant R., and Reimann, Bernard C. "Task Envi- ronment, Decentralization, and Organizational Effectiveness.” Human Relations, XXVI (April, 1973), 203-214. Park, Robert E. ”Human Communities." The City and Human Ecology. The collected papers, Vol. II. Edited by Everett Hughs, et a1. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1952. Park, Robert E. On Social Control and Collective Behav- igr. Selected papers. “Edited’and_With an intro- duction by Ralph H. Turner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967. Park, Robert E.; Burgess, Ernest W.; and McKenzie, Roderick D. The City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1925. Parsons, Talcott. ”Suggestions for a Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organizations -- I." Administrative Science Quarterly, I (June, 1956), 93-55. Parsons, Talcott. Structure and Processes in Modern Societies. New York: The Free Press, 1969. Payne, Roy L. and Mansfield, Roger. "Relationships of Perceptions of Organizational Climate to Organi- zational Structure, Context, and Hierarchical Position.” Administrative Science Quarterly, XVIII (December, 1973), 515-526. 213 Perrow, Charles. "Organizational Prestige: Some Func- tions and Disfunctions.” American Journal of Sociology, LXVI (January, 1961), 335-341. Perrow, Charles. "Framework for the Comparative Analy- sis of Organizations." American Sociological Review, XXXII (April, 1967), 194-208. Perrow, Charles. Organizational Analysis: A Sociologi- cal View. BeImonf, California: Wadsworth Publish- ing Co., 1970. Perrow, Charles. Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman, 1972. Perrucci, Robert, and Pilisuk, Marc. "Leaders and Rul- ing Elites: The Intraorganizational Bases of Com- munity Power.” American Sociological Review, xxxv (December, 1970), 1040-1057. Pfeffer, Jeffrey. ”Size and Composition of Corporate Boards of Directors: The Organization and Its Environment.” Administrative Science Quarterly, XVII (June, 1972;, 218-228. Pfeffer, Jeffrey. "Merger as a Response to Organiza- tional Interdependence.“ Administrative Science Quarterly, XVII (September, 1972), 382-393. Pfeffer, Jeffrey. "Size, Composition and Function of Hospital Boards of Directors: A Study of Organi- zation-Environment Linkage." Administrative Science Quarterly, XVIII (September, 1973), 349- 364. Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Leblebici, Huseyin. "The Effect of Competition on Some Dimensions of Or aniza- tional Structure.” Social Forces, LII December, 1973)) 268-279- Price, James L. Or anizational Effectiveness: An Inventory of ropositions. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, 1968. Pugh, Derek 8., et al. ”A Conceptual Scheme for Organ- izational AnaIysis.” Administrative Science Quarterly, VIII (December,l963), 289-315. Pugh, Derek 8.; Hickson, D. J.; Hinings, C. R.; and Turner, C. ”The Context of Organization Struc- tures.l Administrative Science Quarterly, XIV (March, 1969), 91-114. It...“ 214 Pugh, Derek 8.; Hickson, D. J.; and Hinings, C. R. ”An Empirical Taxonomy of Structures of Work Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarter- ly, XIV (March, 1969), 115-126. Pugh, Derek 8.; Hickson, D. J.; Hinings, C. R.; and Turner, C. ”Dimensions of Organization Structure.” Administrative Science Quarterly, XIII (June, 1968), 65-I05. Randall, Ronald. "Influence of Environmental Support and Policy Space on Organizational Behavior.‘I Administrative Science Quarterly, XVIII (June, 1978), 236-247. Reid, William J. ”Interagency Coordination in Delin- quency Prevention and Control." Social Service Review, XXXVIII (December, 1964), 418:428. Reid, William J. ”Interorganizational Coordination in Social Welfare: A Theoretical Approach to Analysis and Intervention." Readings in Commun- ity Organization Practice. Edited by Ralph MI Kramer and Harry Specht. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1969, 176-188. Reid, William J. "Interorganizational Cooperation: A Review and Critique of Current Theory.” Inter- Organization Research in Health, Conference Pro- ceedings, John Hopkins University, National Cen- ter for Health Services Research and Development, Baltimore, Maryland, January, 1971. Roeber, Richard J. C. The Organization in a Changing Environment. Reading, Massachusetfs: Addison- Wesley, 1973. Roethlisberger, F. J., and Dickson, William J. Manage- ment and The Worker. Cambridge: Harvard Univer- sity‘PIess, 1939. Rose, Arnold M. "Voluntary Associations Under Condi- tions of Competition and Conflict." Social Forces, XXXIV (December, 1955), 159-163. Rosengren, William R. ”Organizational Age, Structure, and Orientations Toward Clients.” Social Forces, XLVII (September, 1968), 1-11. Rosengren, William R., and Lefton, Mark. Hospitals and Patients: A Theory of Clients and Organiza- tions. New York: AthertonfiPress, 1969. #7:: 215 Rosengren, William R., and Lefton, Mark, eds. Organi- zations and Clients: Essays in the Sociology of Service. Columbus,fiOhio: Charles R. Merrill, I975?- Seeley, John R., et a1. Community Chests: A Case Study of Philanthropy. Toronto, Ontario: Univer- sity of Toronto Press, 1957. Selznick, Philip. TVA and the Grass Roots. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1949. Selznick, Philip. Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson, 1957. Sills, David L. The Volunteers: Means and Ends in a National Organization. Glencoe, Illinois: Glen- coe Press, 1957. Simpson, Richard L., and Gulley, William H. ”Goals, Environmental Pressures, and Organizational Char- acteristics." American Sociological Review, XXVII (June, 1962), 344-350. Singelmann, Peter. ”Exchange as Symbolic Interaction: Convergences Between Two Theoretical Perspectives.” American Sociological Review, XXXVII (August, 1972 ) , 4111-11211. Starbuck, William H. "Organizational Growth and Devel- opment." Handbook of Organizations. Edited by James G. March. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1965. Stinchcombe, Arthur L. "Social Structure and Organiza- tions.‘ Handbook of Organizations. Edited by James G. March. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1965. Tannenbaum, Arnold S. Control in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hi11,71968. Terreberry, Shirle . "The Evolution of Organizational Environments.’ Administrative Science Quarterly, XII (March, 1968), 590-6131 Thompson, James D. ”Organizations and Output Trans- actions." American Journal of Sociology, LXVIII (November, 1962), 309-324. Thompson, James D. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. 216 Thompson, James D., and McEwen, William J. ”Organiza- tion Goals and Environment: Goal Setting as an Interaction Process.” American Sociological Review, XXIII (February, 1958), 23-31. Turk, Herman. "Interorganizational Networks in Urban Society: Initial Perspectives and Comparative Research.” American Sociological Review, XXXV (February, 1970), 1-I1. Turk, Herman. "Comparative Urban Structure from an Interorganizational Perspective." Administra- tive Science Quarterly, XVIII (March,‘l973), 37-55. Turk, Herman, and Simpson, Richard L., eds. Institu- . 11a tions and Social Exchange: The Sociolegies of r} TaICOtt Parsons and GEorge C. Homans. *New‘York: he Bobbs-Merrill, 1971. Udy, Stanley H., Jr. ”Administrative Rationality, Social Setting, and Organizational Development." American Journal of Sociology, LXVIII (November, 1962), 299-308. Udy, Stanley H., Jr. "The Comparative Analysis of Organization." Handbook of Organizations. Edited by James G. March. Chicago: RandJMCNally, 1965. Warren, Roland L. "The Inter-Organizational Field as a Focus for Investigation." Administrative Science Quarterly, XII (December, 1967), 396-419. Warren, Roland L. ”The Concerting of Decisions as a Variable in Organizational Interaction.” Paper prepared for a Conference on Interorganizational Decision-Making, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, 1969. Warren, Roland L. The Structure of Urban Reform. Lex- ington, Massachusetts: Heath, 1974. Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organi- zation. TransIatEdfiby A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. Edited by Talcott Parsons. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1947. White, Paul; Levine, Sol; and Vlasak. "Exchange as a Conceptual Framework for Understanding Inter- organizational Relationships: Application to Non- Profit Organizations." Organization Theory in an Interorganizational Perspective. Edited by Anant R. Negandhi. Kent, Ohio: C.A.R.I., Kent State University, 1971. 1 217 Wilson, James Q. "Innovation in Organization: Notes Toward a Theory.” Approaches to Organization Design. Edited by James D.*Thompson. Pitts- burgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1966. Woodward, Joan. Management and Technology. London: Her MaJesty'sfiPrinting Office, 1958. Woodward, Joan. Industrial_0rganization: Behavior and Control. London: Oxford University Press, 1955 and 1970. Yuchtman, Ephraim, and Seashore, Stanley E. ”A System Resource Approach to Organizational Effective- ness.” American Sociological Review, XXXII (December,*I967),_891-903. Zald, Mayer. ”Organizations as Polities: An Analysis of Community Organization Agencies." Readings in Community Organization Practice. Edited by Ralph M. Kramer and Harry SpeCht. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1969. Zald, Mayer. "Political Economy: A Framework for Comparative Analysis.” Power In Organizations. Edited by Mayer Zald. Nashville, Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Press, 1970. APPENDIX A APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS Coalition: A cooperative strategy involving the combi- nation of two or more organizations for a common purpose, and the commitment of resource(s) of value in order to conduct a Joint program or render a service. (Reid, 1964) Domain: ”The specific goals the organization wishes to pursue and the functions it undertakes in order to imple- ment its goals.” (Levine and White, 1961, p. 597) Qperational definition: "The claims that an organizatiOn stakes out for itself in terms of 1) need, program, service, i.e., substantive area of need covered; 2) popu- lation served; 3) range of services rendered." (Levine and White, 1961, p. 597) Contextual Environment: Normative and diffuse elements in the environment that indirectly influence the organi- zation, e.g., the media or political authority. Coordinating Ageney: A formal organization whose maJor purpose is to order behavior between two or more other formal organizations. (Litwak and Hylton, 1962) Differentiation: ”State of segmentation of the organi- zational system into subsystems, each of which tends to develop particular attributes in relation to the require- ments posed by its relevant external environment." (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967, pp. 3-4) Domain Consensus: Common agreement, formal or informal, among relevant organizations in the task and contextual environments on the extent and limits of each organiza- tion's functions and goals. Operational definition: "The degree to whiCh‘they‘(agenEIes) agree and accept each others' claims with regard to prob- lems covered, services offered and 218 219 population served.” (Levine, White, and Paul, 1963, p. 1191) Effectiveness: Organizationally, the question of "what to do," i.e., policy and allocative decisions for goal achievement internally and environmental adaptation externally. Efficiency: The criterion for operational progress and success of the organization, within the framework of the organizational effectiveness criterion; organizationally, the question of "how to do it,” i.e., coordinative, instrumental and technical decisions for a favorable cost-benefit ratio. Human Service Organizations: Private Agencies -- United Way: Formally organized, task-oriented group Which provides at least one social service as defined in the functional budget- ing guide of United Way of America (UWA). Main obJective is providing social services to people, either at the individual or group level. (Organi- zations rimaril offering services and programs in the fieIds of health, education, recreation, and law enforcement are excluded even though they may offer a social service.) All.United Way agencies are included. Private égencies -- Other: Organization must have a paid, ull-time equivaIent staff of at least five persons and an annual budget of at least $10,000. Work must be directed primarily toward the provision of social services (see above for exclusions), and the staff must be directly employed. The organization must have its own policy-making body with power to hire and fire and to determine the allocation of funds. Public Agencies: Organizations primarily depend- ent upon tax finds, federal, state, regional or local, which have as their maJor function provi- sion of social services as described in the United Way Agency guide. Funding sources may include contributions and grants from non-public sources. Public Agencies -- Component: At least five full- time equivalent paid staff and a yearly budget of $10,000. The director must have power to hire and fire staff without consultation with the parent organization, and considerable freedom 220 to determine funding allocations. There may be some kind of semi-autonomous, governing body or at least an advisory body. A generally recog- nized community visibility as an agency is important. Integration: "The process of achieving unity of effort among the various subsystems in the accomplishment of the organization's task." (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967, p. 4 Joint Program: A formalized integration of resources between two or more organizations for the purpose of Jointly delivering programs or services. _Qperationa1 definition: Service-oriented reIationsHips involving the use of resources of two or more autonomous human service organizations; the activities must be planned, formalized to some extent, approved (formally or informally) by a policy body or by staff decision; and the relationship must be durable and contemporary, i.e., in operation for at least six months, and in existence sometime during the past five years. Or anizational Dependency (External Decision Control); Efgicacy or control regarding organizational decisions and outcomes is perceived to be external to the organi- zation's boundaries. Organizational Exchange: Any voluntary activity between tonor more)70rganizations which has consequences, actual or anticipated, for the realization of their respective goals or obJectives. (Levine and White, 1961: P0 583) Power: "Ability to exercise influence in a decision- maEIng process.’ (Hawley, 1973, p. 422). Resource: Tangible or intangible elements of value (ex- c ange y organizations); may be economic, social, or psychological in nature, e.g., money; staff; space; affect; good will; information; access; social or legal approval. Subsystem: A component operating unit or department of an organization. 221 Task Environment: Direct functional linkages and ele- menfs In the environment that are relevant or poten- tially relevant to goal settin. and attainment of an organization, e.g., clients. %Adapted from Dill, 1958). APPENDIX B APPENDIX B SURVEY QUESTIONS FOR MEASUREMENT ORGANIZATIONAL DEPENDENCYl (Part II of questionnaire). Which of the five persons, groups of things (on an attached list) exert the most influence over decisions about each of the following: (Twenty-five decisions are listed labeled (a.) through (y.). For each decision item, space is indicated for the five top choices from a list of persons, groups and things. The listing of internal versus external influences is included in the Method- ology Section of Chapter III.) 1 See the pages following for the survey format. 222 flqm’ I35. :- A~’ ‘- n h 10 . 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 223 THIS LIST IS USED FOR QUESTIONS ON NEXT PAGE LIST OF PERSONS, GROUPS AND THINGS WHICH MAY EXEKI‘ INI'IUIENCE ON DECISIONS ' Boarder Commission of your agency Board of Greater Kalamazoo United way Businessmen Clients- Directors of other agencies Funding organizations General public Labor groups Local government officials ,and politicians Local, state or federal laws Minority groups Money , Need for new or additional services Parent organizations (national or state) Professional standards President/Quainmn of Board/ Cannission of this agency 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. ' -22. 23. 24. .25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30'. Previous Board/Commission rnenbers Professional staff in this agency Professionals employed by other agencies Religious groups or clergy Requirements of governmental funding agencies or organi- zations Staff of Greater Kalamazoo ~ United Way Staff of other agencies and organizations Upper level staff in this agency Lower level staff in this agency ° Volunteers You, yourself State or federal governmental officials or politicians Sponsoring organization or agency Other, please specify ~ 335 ‘ " .‘T‘ ."‘~ Yin 22“ In infernal interviews in several connnunities, agency directors have described the many conflicting pressures ez-perienced in administering local agencies within the limited resources available. Because this problem of multiple pres- sures is so inportant in the planning. of human services, we need to collect systematic information for it to be really useful in planning to improve ser- vices. The questions which follow are the best nethod we have found to collect the necessary information. I 01 the page to your left is a list of persons, groups and things that may. have an influence over decisions in your agency. In the spaces provided below each question, please write in the number or name of the five persons, groups or, things on the list which exert the most influence over each of the decisions. Look over the entire list to familiarize yourself with it before you begin. Please do not write more than five answers; you may write in fewer than five if that is appropriate. If you select 'other' , please specify. If none, please write in NONE. ' To illustrate, here is an example: Which of the five on the list exert the most influence over your decisionrto J.;» help us by answering this question? - if NSLL “(C/i f4! ['1 ch ‘9 m If (2) 97 (3i30-7’“’M (4) '30" (s) ”" \ fl ' 7. Which five persons, groups, or things exert the most influence over decisions about each of the following: a. . The decision to develop new programs? WRITE IN NUMBER OR NAME . (l) (2) (3) (4) ‘ (5.) b. The decisions concerning planning to meet local needs? WRITE IN NUMBER OR NAME . (1) (2) - <3) (4) ’ (5) V .o- c. The decision to seek funding from a new source? WRITE IN NLMBER 0R NAME (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) ' d. The decision to create new services? WRITE 1N NUMBER OR WE (,1) (2) - (3) m (5) e. Tne decision to eliminate services? WRITE IN NUMZER OR NIWE (1) (2) _- ; (3) -- (n- - (5) (I) TO PAGE 42 IJ jJ-C‘lg ‘EIII .‘D‘r .Oyo ' 225 USE LIST ON THE PAGE TO YOUR LEFT f. The decision to expand services? WRITE m NUMBER OR NAME 5.. In. .0. p. (1) . (2) ... . . . (3) . .. .. (4) . .. (5) The decision to write proposals for funding? WRITE IN NIMBER OR NAME (1) ' (2) (3) ' ’ (4r - .. (5) The decision to make rules and regulations? WRITE IN NUMBER OR NAME: (1) . (2) .. .. (3)..... .. (4).... (5). ‘ \ 'me decision ,to publicly debate agency's opponents? WRITE IN NUMBER OR NAME (1) (2) ' (3) ' (4) ' ' " (5) The decision for location of agency offices and service centers? WRITE IN NUMBER 03 NAME - ‘ . (l) (2) - ' '(3) (4) ' (5) The decision to advertise the agency? WRITE 1N NUMBER OR NAME (1) (2) ' (3) (4) ' ' (5) 'me decision to recruit volunteers? WRITE IN. NUMBER OR NAME (1) (2') ' (3) (4) (5) The decision to fire volunteers? WRITE 1N NUMBER OR NAME (1) (2)- - (3) (4) ' (s) ’— The decision to increase work load of staff? WRITE IN NUMBER OR NAME (1) (2) (3) ' i (4) ' (5) The decision to fix and/or raise salaries? WRITE IN NUIBER OR NAME m (2) (3) (4) (5) 1. The decision to classify jobs? WRITE IN mean on we (1) (2) - (3) ~ [(4) (5). GO '10 PAGE 43 7'1“... ' 22.6 USE LIST ON THE PAGE TO YOUR LEFT .. q. u. V. W. X. The decision (1) to make staff promotions? ’WRITE IN NUMBER 0R NAME (2) . ... (3). ...... (4).... . (_S)' The decision (1) to create new positions? WRITE. IN NUMBER OR NARE The decision (1) (2) , .. ~ (3) ... . ... (4) . . .. (S) ..... to hire administrative staff? WRITE IN mean on NAME ‘ (2) (3).... .. (41...... (5). The decision (1) to hire professional staff? WRITE IN NUMBER OR NAME (2) '. - (3) ........ (4) ..... ... (5) ..... The decision (1) P to hire clerical staff? WRITE IN NUMBER OR NAME (2) (3) (4) (5) The decision (1) ta fire administrative staff? WRITEIN NUMBER OR NAME . The decision (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) to fire professional staff? WRITE IN NUMBER OR NAME The decision (1) (2) (3) (4) ' ' (5) ' to bring in own assistants? WRITE IN NUMBER OR NAME '(2) (3) (4) ‘ j ' (5) ' The decision (1) . ’ to purchase office equipment? WRITE IN NUMBER OR NAME (2) (3) (4) ' (5) (I) TO NEXT PAGE -w .u I J.,u ‘ ~I.0 I ll‘o In .. .I - - I5 ._ ....‘u . fl.‘ '(LHI.H'H‘J.C:HV\QP u . Jr‘s...“ £3.41Ua‘14 .‘l'. l. Iltl -IIIIIII Ill 227 SURVEY QUESTIONS FOR MEASUREMENT JOINT PROGRAMSl First Component of Hypothesis: The Frequency of Joint Programs Survey Question: Do you run any programs, projects or services with other Agencies or organ- izations? For instance, have you been involved in any Joint programs over the past three or four years? How many? (The interviewer is asked to probe a little to insure that this question is clearly under- stood and fully answered.) Second Component of Hypothesis: The Initiation of Joint Programs Survey Question: How did this program begin? Who got it going? What agencies or organiza- tions provided leadership? (This series of questions is utilized in order to secure as clear an answer as possible as to which organization pro- vided the original impetus.) 1 See the pages following for the survey format. 228 Third Component of Hypothesis: The Intensity of Joint Programs Survey Questions: 1. Number of resources contributed to the Joint program by the respondent agency NUmber of times the agency committed its own funds to Joint programs Number of times the agency agreed to share authority over joint programs Joint program characteristics: a Its own name or title? b Formal contract? c Was it a voluntary agency commitment? 0) Relative duration of the program? (A Joint Program Intensity Index is computed for all agencies on the basis of a point system representing the levels of organizational commit— ment to Joint Programs. The agency's relative level of intensity is deter- mined, and the results are then dichot— omized into high and low intensity agencies. The Index is included in the Methodology Section of Chapter III. 229 20. Please identify any agencies with which you have formal contracts for services. WRITE IN NUT-IEERS/I‘DRDS a. b. ' c. _ ' d. ' ' e. 21. Do you run any programs, projects or services with other agencies or organ— izations? For instance, have you been involved in any joint program over the past three or four years? . yes _ no a. IF YES, about how many? ' ENTER NUMBER b. IF NO, PROBE A LITTLE. Perhaps the agency worked with some others on a community project; do you ever use another organization's building? EXPLORE THE QUESTION A LITTLE. II) NOT PRESS RESPONDENT '10 TEIL YOU ABOUI' PROGRAL'S . PMBE BECAUSE SOME RESPONDENTS II) NOT KNOW WHAT IS MEANT BY 'JODYI“ . - IE YOU LEARN AmUI‘ SQ‘CE JOINT PIOGRAMS, RECORD NUMBER ' ' IF DEFINITE NO, (30 '10 QUESTION 23. I \ I IF YOU GET POSITIVE RESPONSES, THEN ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR EACH JOINT PHDGRAM. RECDPD ANSIERS SEPARATELY FOR EACH ONE. SPACE IS PIDVIDED 'IO RECDRD INFONQTICN ABOUT SIX PPOGPM-"S. IF RESPONDENT HAS INDICATED HTS AGENCY IS IN- VOLVED IN {DRE 'I'IIAN SIX, USE OTHER PAGES TO RECDRD INFORMATION. ASK HIM TO DESCRIBE THE MOST, IMPORTANT ONES, THE MAJOR ONES. We need information about the joint programs your agency is or has been involved in during the last three or four years. let's go through them quickly, one at a tine, to be sure I get'the details for the major ones clearly recorded. TURN OVER PAGE TO BEGIN REGDRDING ‘W s. 1‘ 22. DETAILS OF JOINI‘ PIDGRAMS 239 Program 1 Program 2 What is the name of the program? What is its content, scope; what goes on in the program? C. What other agencies are involved? ' ”CM did this program begin? N10 got it going? that agencies or organizations provided leadership? e. Duration: (if ongoing) when did program begin? (if past) how long was program in Operation? months months maul; does (did) your agency con- tribute (money, staff, clients, space , information , supervision , etc.) What resources do (did) other agencies contribute? (see above) Where does the Honey for this come from? Staff: who works on this pro- gram? does it have its own staff? are they from agencies? are their volunteers involved? 'Q ‘.‘ x , flow are decisiOns made? how are ; any disagreenents or conflicts ' resolved? t ..~ .J it. Is there a formal contract? . yes no DO . Are you pleased with the pud- gram? What are major problem-3,. if any? . Jutoul '0‘!I.l‘l‘.. . .1“ I 4 l 1‘. I. . I I a .l . . . . y a. |.I ... .‘ ui ‘11, .Iiln ~ . . . i . . . JO . ..... nICHIan STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES NWWI”NINHIIWI"WINIHIUIIHWI 31293103317859