INFORMATION TO USERS

This reproduction was m a d e from a copy of a manuscript sent to us for publication
and microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to p h o ­
tograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily
dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. Pages in any manuscript
m a y have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarifynotations which
m a y appear on this reproduction.
1. Manuscripts m a y not always be complete. W h e n it Is not possible to obtain
missing pages, a note appears to Indicate this.
2. W h e n copyrighted materials are removed from the manuscript, a note ap­
pears to indicate this.
3. Oversize materials (maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sec­
tioning the original, beginning at the upper left hand comer and continu­
ing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize
page is also filmed as one exposure and is available, for an additional
charge, as a standard 3 5 m m slide or in black and white paper format.*
4. Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or micro­
fiche but lack clarity on xerographic copies m a d e from the microfilm. For
an additional charge, all photographs are available In black and white
standard 3 5 m m slide format.*

•For more information about black and white slides or enlarged paper reproductions,
please contact the Dissertations Customer Services Department

T

T A / T T Dissertation
Information Service

U IVJLJL

University Microfilms International
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

* r

8700529

T e rry , P atterson A rm stro n g

LOCAL SOCIAL SERVICE INTERORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS: THEIR
ENVIRONMENTS AND THEIR EFFECTS ON THE DELIVERY OF SOCIAL
SERVICES

Michigan State University

University
Microfilms
International

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 40106

Ph.D.

1986

PLEASE NOTE:

In alt cases this material has been filmed in the best possible w ay from the available copy.
Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V

1.

Glossy photographs or pages_____

2.

Colored illustrations, paper or print_______

3.

Photographs with dark background_____

4.

Illustrations are poor copy_______

5.

Pages with black marks, not original copy_______

6.

Print shows through as there is text on both sides of p a g e _______

7.

Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages

8.

Print exceeds m argin requirements______

9.

Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______

.

iS

10.

Computer printout pages with indistinct print_______

11.

Page(s)____________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or
author.

12.

Page(s)____________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13.

Two pages num bered

14.

Curling and wrinkled pages______

15.

Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received _

16.

Other____________________________________________________________________________

. Textfollows.

s

'

University
Microfilms
International

LOCAL SOCIAL SERVICE INTERORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS:
THEIR ENVIRONMENTS AND THEIR EFFECTS
ON THE DELIVERY OF SOCIAL SERVICES

by

Patterson Armstrong Terry

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Sociology

1986

ABSTRACT
LOCAL SOCIAL SERVICE INTERORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS:
THEIR ENVIRONMENTS AND THEIR EFFECTS
ON THE DELIVERY OF SOCIAL SERVICES
by
Patterson A. Terry

T h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , based on d a t a from t w e l v e m e d i u m - s i z e d cities in
Michigan and Ohio,
about

reports

the derivation and

the interaction of variables

—

at

testing of propositions

five

l e v e l s of analysis —

that bear on social service delivery. Specifically:
(1)

the relationship of organizational

v a r iables

to the formation

of

interorganlzational dyads;
(2)

content development over time in interorganlzational dyads;

(3)

the relationship of

local social service network structure

to the

nature of interorganlzational dyads;
(4)

the relationship of local e n v i r o n m e n t

characteristics

to l o c a l

social service network structure;
(5)

the relationship of links between local environments and the larg­
er (national) system to local social

Specific
(1)

findings:

Centralization,

internal

communication,

ciency are unrelated

to dyad

Is d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d

to dyad f o r m a t i o n ,

Number of dyadic
(2)

service network structure.

formalization,

formation and

ganizational dyads.

innovativeness.

Size

but c o m p l e x i t y is not.

ties is di-rectly related

There is no consistent pattern to changes

and effi­

to innovativeness.
in content of interor-

(3)

Concentration of influence in interorganizational networks is in­
versely

related

to dyad density

among

non-influential

tions and to average multiplexity for a l l dyads.
tween influential and non-inf luential

organiza­

Dyad density be­

organizations

is d i r e c t l y

related to dyad density among non-influential organizations.
(4)

Variables related to the concentration of political power in met­
ropolitan areas are unrelated to the concentration of influence in
local social service networks.

(5)

The amount of contact between a metropolitan area and the national
s y s t e m is u n r e l a t e d to the c o n c e n t r a t i o n of i n f l u e n c e in l o c a l
social

service networks.

General theoretical conclusions;
(1)

Individual
service

social

service

organizations,

organizations,

are

homeostatic:

and networks
their

of social

structures

are

unresponsive to differential environments conditions.
(2)

Dyads formed between social s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s
their

natures

networks
(3)

change

in r e s p o n s e

to

pressures

are a d a pt i v e :
exerted

in

the

in which they occur.

Structural change in networks of social service organizations,

in

the f o r m of an i n c r e a s e in the n u m b e r of m a j o r r e s o u r c e centers,
induces greater density and greater m u l t i p l e x i t y in interorganiza­
tional relations.

For Paul, whose values forged my soul

For Catherine, my staunchest defender in my wars against myself

For Jon and for Eric, whose needs called me back from the abyss

For Phil, whose ideas are the germ of this work
and whose guidance brought it to completion

For Esther, who walked with me while

I defined myself

For Patterson, who did the work

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I w a n t f i r s t to thank the m e m b e r s of m y d o c t o r a l g u i d a n c e committee:
Frank Camilleri,

Tom Conner, Craig Harris, and Phil Marcus.

The blend

of their skil l s and knowledge became a reservoir of support that always
proved

to m e e t m y needs.

D u r i n g the e x t e n d e d and t o r t u o u s j o u r n e y
*

toward m y doctorate,
direction and help

each of them at various
that were essential

times provided particular

to my completing

it.

Coll e c ­

ti v e l y they exhibited a remarkable patience that was also crucial to ray
obtaining my degree.

I also
Science.

want

to

thank

Gwen

Andrew,

Dean

of

the

College

of

Soc i a l

Her quiet, continual support of me in the administrative work

by w h i c h I m a d e m y l i v i n g as the d i s s e r t a t i o n w a s w r i t t e n p r o v i d e d
peace of mind essential

to the writing process.

I w a n t e s p e c i a l l y to e m p h a s i z e m y a p p r e c i a t i o n for Phil Marcus, who
chaired m y guidance committee.

Phil provided such a variety of profes­

s i o n a l a n d p e r s o n a l s u p p o r t d u r i n g the e n t i r e d e g r e e p r o c e s s that I
c a n n o t t h a n k h i m p r o p e r l y in a d e c e n t l y a b b r e v i a t e d a c k n o w l e d g m e n t .
A m o n g the m o s t i m p o r t a n t things he p r o v i d e d w e r e the e l e m e n t s of the
ideas that I shaped into m y dissertation research,

unremitting reassur­

a n c e that a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s e s b e y o n d m y c o n t r o l w o u l d turn out
properly so long as I did my part of the work,
tive

balance

of n a g g i n g and b e n i g n n e g l e c t .

and a remarkably effec­
F o r those

c o u n t l e s s o t h e r types of support, and for the d e g r e e
obtained under your tutelage:

thank you,

iii

Phil.

things,

for

I h a v e at last

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables
Chapter 1.

viii

Introduction

1

A.

The General Background of This Research
1. Systems Theory
2. Network Analysis

1
2
3

B.

Boundaries around the Research
1. What Are "Social Services"?
2. What Does It Mean to "Improve the Delivery"
of Social Services?
3. What Are the "Resources" of a Government Agency?
4. What Is a "Category of Constituents"?

4
4
6
9
10

The Context of Service Delivery

11

C.

Chapter 2.

A.

A Discussion of Relevant, Previously Published
Research

15

Systems Theory as an Orienting Framework
1. What Are Systems?
2. Levels of Systems
3. The Analysis of Adaptive Systems
4. What Levels of Social Systems Are What Types of
System?

20

B.

Social Network Analysis
1. The Basic Decisions in Network Research
2. Data Collection Issues in Network Research
3. Measures of Network Characteristics
4. The Number of Entities Considered at Once

25
26
27
29
32

C.

The Interaction of Organizational Characteristics
and Dyad Formation

33

D.

The Development of Dyadic Interaction

40

E.

The Conditioning of Dyadic Relationships by Network
Characteristics

48

iv

15
16
17
18

F.

G.

The Effect of the Local Environment on
Social Service Delivery Network

the Local

The Effect of the Nonlocal Environment
Social Service Delivery Network

on the Local

Chapter 3.

Data, Assumptions, Hypotheses, and
Analysis

53

60

Methods of
65

A.

The Data Available from the Study

65

B.

General Assumptions
1. Practical Consequences
2. Theoretical Conjectures
3. The Adequacy of the Network Data

70
70
72
77

C.

The
and
1.
2.
3.

80
80
83
89

Interaction of Organizational Characteristics
Dyad Formation
Theoretical Explication
Data and Method of Analysis
Specific Hypotheses

D.

The
Development of Dyadic Interaction
1.
Theoretical Explication
2. The Data and Method of Analysis
3. Specific Hypothesis

E.

The Conditioning of Dyadic Relationships by Network
Characteristics
1. Theoretical Explication
2. Data and Method of Analysis
3. Specific Hypotheses

98
98
101
106

The Effect of the Local Environment on
Social Service Delivery Network
1. Theoretical Explication
2. The Data and Method of Analysis
3. Specific Hypothesis

107
107
108
111

F.

G.

the Local

The Effect of the Nonlocal Environment on the Local
Social Services
Delivery Network
1.
Theoretical Explication
2. Data and Method of Analysis
3. Specific Hypothesis

Chapter 4.
A.

92
92
94
97

Findings

112
112
113
114

115

The Interaction of Organizational Characteristics
and Dyad Formation
1.
The Relationship of Size to Complexity
2.
The Relationship of Size to I0R Formation
3.
The Relationship of Complexity to IOR Formation
v

115
115
117
118

4.
5.

The Relationship of Innovation to Other
Variables
The Relationship between IOR Formation and
Internal Organizational Variables

120
122

B.

The Development of Dyadic Interaction

C.

The Conditioning of Dyadic Relationships by Network
Characteristics
1.
The Effect of Relationships with Influential
Organizations
2.
The Relationship of Influence Concentration to
the Formation of Organizational Relationships
3.
The Relationship of Influence Concentration to
Dyadic Multiplexity

133

The Effect of the Local Environment on the Local
Social Service Network

134

The Effect of the Nonlocal Environment on the Local
Social Service Delivery Network

138

D.

E.

Chapter 5.
A.

B.
C.

Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Summary of Findings
1.
Internal Organizational Variables
2.
Interorganizational Dyad Development
3.
The Effect of Interorganizational Networks on
Dyad Formation and Content
4.
The Impact of the Local Environment on Social
Service Networks
5.
Connection to the National Environment
6.
Overall Summary
Recommendations for Further Research
Recommendations to Agencies Intervening to Improve
Social Service Delivery

List of References
Appendix A-l.

127
127
131

142
142
144
145
147
148
149
149
150
152

155

Survey Instrument —

Part A: Interviewer
Questionnaire

Appendix A-2.

List of Influences on Social

Appendix A-3.

Survey Instrument — Part
B: Additional Agency
Head Perceptions

Appendix A-4.

124

Survey Instrument —

Service Agencies

Part C: Client, Personnel,
and Budget Information

vi

167
185

186

200

Appendix B.

Metropolitan Area Variables Available

206

Appendix C.

Tables of Correlations for Cities

219

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2C-1

The Aiken-Hage Independent Variables and Their
Zero-Order Correlations with Number of Joint
Programs

34

Table 2C-2

Path Coefficients in Paulson's Model

37

Table 3F-1

Variable Loadings on SES Factor

110

Table 4A-1

The Relationship of Size to Complexity

116

Table 4A-2

The Relationship of Size to I0R Formation

117

Table 4A-3

The Relationship of Complexity to IOR Formation

119

Table 4A-4

The Relationships of Innovation to Other
Variables

121

The Relationships of IOR to Internal
Organizational Variables

124

Table 4B-1

Guttman Scalability for Three Types of Links

126

Table 4C-1

Positive Correlations between Ties to
Influentials and Ties to Non-Influentials
for Non-influential Organizations

129

Positive Correlations between Ties to
Influentials and Ties to Non-Influentials
for Influential Organizations

130

Correlations of Influence Concentration with
Density of Dyad Formation among Non-Influential
Organizations

132

Regression of Population T u r n o v e r , Economic
Dispersion, Ethnic Heterogeneity, and SES on
Influence Concentration in Social Service
Networks

135

Correlations of the Number of External Ties
with Influence Concentration and Interactive
Density in Social Service Networks

139

Table 4A-5

Table 4C-2

Table 4C-3

Table 4D-1

Table 4E-1

viii

Tables In Appendix:
Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

C-l

C-2

C-3 .

C4-1

C4-2

C4-3

C4-4

C4-5

Table C4-6

Table C4-7

Table C5-1

Table C5-2

Table C5-3

Table C5-4

The Relationship of Size to
the Twelve Cities

Complexity in

The Relationship of Size to
in the Twelve Cities

IOR Formation

The Relationship of Size to
in the Twelve Cities

IOR Formation

219

220

221

The Relationship of Innovation to Size
in the Twelve Cities

222

The Relationship of Innovation
in the Twelve Cities

to Complexity
223

The Relationship of Innovation
in the Twelve Cities

to IOR

The Relationship of Innovation
In the Twelve Cities

to Centralization

224

225

The Relationship of Innovation to Internal
Communication in the Twelve Cities

226

The Relationship of Innovation to Formalization
in the Twelve Cities

227

The Relationship of Innovation to Efficiency
in the Twelve Cities

228

The Relationship of IOR Formation to
Centralization in the Twelve Cities

229

The Relationship of IOR Formation to
Internal Communication in the Twelve Cities

230

The Relationship of IOR Formaation to
Formalization in the Twelve Cities

231

The Relationship of IOR Formation to
Efficiency in the Twelve Cities

232

ix

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

A.

During

the

1960's

ticularly
Society"

The General Background of This Research

the availability of

federal

government money (par­

t h r o u g h the v a r i o u s p r o g r a m s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the "Great

legislation enacted at

contributed

the urging

of

then-President

Johnson)

to a p r o l i f e r a t i o n of s o c i a l s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s and

experiments with a wide variety of interorganizational arrangements for
service delivery.

Accompanying this increase in the number and variety

of p r o g r a m s was a l a r g e amo u n t of r e s e a r c h on the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,
relationships,

and effectiveness of social service agencies.

The gradual diminution in funds a v a i l a b l e for social service programs,
and for social science research generally, curtailed research on social
services drastically;

by 1980 practically no such work was being pub­

l i s h e d in m a i n l i n e s o c i o l o g i c a l jo u r n a l s .

I s s u e s raised in the re­

search of that period, however, were not resolved and remain important:
the functioning of and interrelationships among social service agencies
are of v i t a l

concern to tens of mil l i o n s of Americans and hundreds of

m i l l i o n s of p e o p l e w o r l d - w i d e .
thought —
r elevant

In a d d i t i o n , two o n g o i n g str e a m s of

one theoretical and the other methodological —
to

twenty years

are directly

the types of problems addressed in the research of ten to
ago.

1

1.

Systems Theory

The t h e o r e t i c a l s t r e a m of thought, s y s t e m s theory,
assumptions about the workings of social

structure.

is a b a c k d r o p of
These assumptions

are imbedded in a substantial proportion of the literature about organ­
izations and interorganizational

relations.

Unfortunately

this

liter­

ature contains more debate about the value and manner of application of
"the systems approach", and more g e n e r a l l y benign nods in the direction
of its jargon,

than it does careful models of particular social systems

(or parts of social systems) and tests of

A good social

those models.

s y s t e m m o d e l m u s t s t ate the l e v e l s of a n a l y s i s u n d e r

consideration, define the relevant variables at each l e v e l of analysis,
and s p e c i f y the e x p e c t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g the v a r i a b l e s at each
l e v e l and between adjacent levels.

C o n s t r u c t i n g s u c h a m o d e l for a

social system of any meaningful size is o b v i o u s l y an enormous task, and
this very enormity helps explain the paucity of serious attempts.

That

t a s k is n o n e t h e l e s s n e c e s s a r y if a t h e o r y of s o c i e t y is to be built;
and this dissertation is Intended as a step in that direction.

The va r iables used in this dissertation are taken from five leve l s of
analysis:

(1) individual organizations,

relationships,
local

(3) networks

community,

(2) dyadic

interorganizational

of interorganizational

relationships in a

(4) the l o c a l

community environment,

and (5)

larger environment (here conceived as the national system).

the

The major­

it y of the p r e d i c t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g v a r i a b l e s c r o s s l e v e l s of
analysis.

Cross-level predictions are more central

of a systems model

to the development

than are predictions within a single

level,

since

3
each

level

serves

as

the Immediate environment

for operations

in the

l e v e l below.

2.

The methodological

Network Analysis

stream of thought,

network analysis,

has developed

sufficiently that it provides several useful tools for examining rela­
tionships among entities defined at any lev e l of analysis.
research done

ten to twenty years ago on social

Most of the

service agencies con­

t a i n e d a s p e c t s of n e t w o r k a n a l y s i s in at l e a s t r u d i m e n t a r y form, b e ­
cause most

researchers came to realize

cies were crucial

to understanding

that relationships among agen­

the functioning

both of individual

agencies and of the social service system as a whole.

For a n e t w o r k a n a l y s i s

to be c o n s t r u c t i v e ,

not m e r e l y

suggestive,

propositions must specify network processes, p a r t i c u l a r l y across le v e l s
of a n a l y s i s .
and

report

certain
tics

S p e c i f i c a l l y , for e x a m p l e , it is not e n o u g h to p re d i c t

that certain organizational

tendencies

in dyad formation;

characteristics
the

correlate with

organizational

characteris­

themselves must be interpreted in network terms so that a common

fabric of explanation links phenomena internal and
izations.

external

to organ­

S i m ilarly the local and extra-local environmental variables

that are expected to relate to organizational network variables must be
interpreted in network terms in the explanation of the predicted rela­
tionships
variables

and

the obtained

findings.

p e r se m u s t h a v e

c a r e f u l l y explicated.

Variables

that

are

not

network

their e f f e c t s u p o n n e t w o r k f u n c t i o n i n g

In this dissertation,
central

to

the o t h e r
common

the

the analysis

construction and

levels

language

testing

of hypotheses.

of a n a l y s i s are c h o s e n and

of

report of findings

of interorganizational

explanation

ties

the

entire

networks

is

Variables at

i n t e r p r e t e d so that a
set of hypotheses and

together.

B. Boundaries around the Research

The data reported in this dissertation were gathered
federal

government

in response to a

request for research on the coordination of mental

h e a l t h s e r v i c e s to the a g ing ( N I M H g r a n t # 31898-02).
gathered in the summer and f a l l of 1979,

The d a t a were

and analysis has been ongoing

since 1980.

A g e n e r a l i z e d v e r s i o n of the c o n c e r n that p r o m p t e d the p r o j e c t from
which this dissertation is derived is reflected in this question:
can a f e d er a l

or s t a t e a g e n c y b e s t use its r e s o u r c e s to i m p r o v e the

d e l i v e r y of (some)
constituents?

How

social

A careful

s e r v ice(s)

definition

of

to some c a t e g o r y (ies) of its
the elements

of that question

w i l l delineate some boundaries for the research reported

1.

here.

What Are "Social Services"?

The analysis in this dissertation Includes o nly individual services and
not c o l l e c t i v e ones.

Collective services, those defined with reference

to the g e n e r a l w e l f a r e , i n c l u d e a r m e d forces, a m o n e t a r y and ban k i n g
system,

police

and fire departments, prisons,

water mains.

Individual

5
s e r v i c e s , those d e f i n e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e to the s p e c i f i c needs of p a r ­
ticular people,

i n c l u d e p r o v i s i o n of food,

clothing,

and s h e l t e r ,

haircuts, access to a counselor, enrollment in a vocational course.

The

distinction

di v i d u a l

is primarily a matter

services

become a c o l l ective

of

perspective.

service,

and

Aggregated

organizations de­

fined for co l l e c t i v e service provide individual services.
tive service we c a l l a fire department,
bilities,

u s u a l l y provides

thoroughly a collec t i v e

the individual

service

as

The collec­

in carrying out its responsi­

fire-fighting equipment if someone c a lls
So

in­

service

of responding with

to say his
the

armed

house is on fire.

forces occasionally

m a k e h e a d l i n e s w h e n their f a c i l i t i e s are u s e d to h e l p c i t i z e n s with
urgent personal needs.

The t e r m " s o c i a l
social

s e r v i c e s " i m p l i e s a complementary category of "non­

services".

When considering

t i n c t i o n is p o i n t l e s s .

individual

services,

such a dis­

At a p a r t i c u l a r time, in a p a r t i c u l a r place,

some material good or personal service may seem so luxurious or harmful
as to be c o m p l e t e l y b e y o n d the c o n n o t a t i o n of the term "social s e r ­
vices";
tives.
ly

but different times and places might offer different perspec­
Providing snowmobiles to Michigan hunters might seem an unlike­

project

snowmobiles

for

the Michigan

Department

of

Social

Services;

providing

to Inuit hunters might be a quite sensible project for the

equivalent Alaska agency.

Thus w h i l e a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n w i l 1 i m p o s e l i m i t s on w h a t can be
considered a social

service,

providing any material

good or personal

6
service to individuals is potentially a social

service.

In this dis­

sertation, social services in any particular situation w i l l be assumed
to Include

the provision of a l l material

goods

and personal

services

that an intervening government agency is concerned about.

2.

What Does It Mean to "Improve the Delivery"
of Social Services?

In this dissertation improvements

in social

service de l i v e r y w ill

be

defined on two dimensions.
a.

The

f i rst d i m e n s i o n is the e x p a n s i o n of e x i s t i n g s e r v i c e

capability,

i n c l u d i n g c r e a t i o n of s e r v i c e s not c u r r e n t l y

delivered.

This

dimension

A i k e n et al. (1975, pp.

is

contained

10-12) c a l l

in

the

con c e p t

the c o m p r e h e n s i v e n e s s

of programs.
b.

T h e s e c o n d d i m e n s i o n is i m p r o v e m e n t of a c c e s s to
services;
tions,

it

involves

ease

of

access

and the r e s p o n s i v e n e s s a n d

to

existing

service

loca­

a c c o u n t a b i l ity of s e r ­

v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s to c l i e n t s ( A i k e n et al.,

1975, pp.

13-

14; G i l b e r t and Specht, 1977, p. 56).

One apparently obvious service dimension omitted here is the quality of
service -- the actual

effect of services

on individual

p r o j e c t on w h i c h this d i s s e r t a t i o n is b a s e d
could

be u s e d

endemic

The

c o n t a i n e d no d a t a that

to m e a s u r e this s e r v i c e d i m e n s i o n .

to research on social service

clients.

delivery.

S u c h o m i s s i o n is

After discussing the

difficulties of measuring service quality, Gilbert and Specht (1977, p.
57)

conclude:

"In the a b s e n c e of

qualitative

measures

of

program

output,

funding agencies must often settle for surrogate measures

as c o n c r e t e m e a s u r e s sho w i n g
numbers of

staff delivering

such

the n u m b e r s of p r o g r a m s in opera t i o n ,

services,

numbers

of clients

served,

and

the like."

A thorough search of
izational
data

relations

the

literature uncovered no study of interorgan­

among social

service

to measure effects of resulting

agencies

also

gathered

service arrangements on clients,

or even client perceptions of those effects.
fects of social

that

Statements

about

the ef­

service networks on clients must therefore be based on

assumed relationships between client impact variables and variables at
a higher

level

of analysis.

Aldrich provided an illustration of such

an a s s u m p t i o n in one a r t i c l e on his s t u d y of m a n p o w e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s
(1976b, p. 238): " A l t h o u g h I h a v e no d i r e c t m e a s u r e s of c l i e n t w e l l
being,

I am proceeding with the analysis on the assumption that client

w e l f a r e is a f f e c t e d by the ext e n t and n a t u r e of c o o r d i n a t i o n b e t w e e n
organizations i n v o l v e d in the manpower training system."

It is signif­

icant that the effects are left undefined.

The a b s e n c e of s e r v i c e q u a l i t y in m e a s u r e s
suggests an Important understanding:

in a service d e l i v e r y system,

clients are little more than grist in a m i l l
tions that process them.
seling services

external

agency must

the

composed of the organiza­

After working assiduously to establish coun­

for residents of a children's

c a m e to this c o n c l u s i o n :

for e v a l u a t i n g prog r a m s

home,

"As a c o n c e p t u a l point,

think of its s e r v i c e s

Crow (1970,

p.121)

it seems that an

as b e i n g

offered

institution as opposed to the residents of that institution."

to an

There

is good

reason

to argue

that clients' perceptions

and

reactions

as individuals are immaterial to the workings of social service d e l i v ­
ery systems.

Whether or not an individual

of no consequence unless
organization

that individual

likes

his/her

treatment is

can in some way convince an

that h e r / h i s o p i n i o n m a t t e r s .

In g e n e r a l , u n l e s s

a

client's part is taken by an organizational actor (such as an organiza­
tion of c l i e n t s , a parents' o r g a n i z a t i o n , or a p o l i t i c a l group) that
client's concerns have no effect.

The r e l a t i v e powerlessness of individual clients stems from the organ­
ization of funding for social services in our society.

Clients are the

source of l i t t l e or none of the funding given social service agencies;
their s a t i s f a c t i o n
agency unl e s s

t h e r e f o r e does not a f f e c t

a funding source becomes

the

concerned.

were funded on the basis of a voucher system,

livelihood
If social

as Warren (1971,

of an

services
pp.

123-

4) once suggested, aggregate client demand could become the most impor­
tant factor in determining social service d e l i v e r y policies; and indi­
v i d u a l c l i e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n p r e s u m a b l y w o u l d b e c o m e a m a t t e r of m o r e
concern.

U n d e r the p r e s e n t system, t h ere is no c o m p e l l i n g r e a s o n to

include client satisfaction as a variable.

The

organizations

additional

that allocate

resources

within

communities

have

concern relevant to the concept of "better service".

In any community

there are typically more demands

an

Since

than available re­

sources can meet, better service means equivalent results for less cost
—
and

an approach that leads to the concept of integrated service delivery
to

coordination

of

agency

programs.

In

some

discus s i o n s ,

9
integrated service delivery and the efficiencies it presumably provides
are

taken

for

granted.

(1971), however,

A stream

of

thought

introduced

by W a r r e n

suggests that comprehensiveness and accessibility for

c l i e n t s m a y b e g r e a t e r w h e n s e r v i c e is n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l l i n t e ­
gr a ted.

In t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n the a m o u n t of i n t e g r a t i o n of s e r v i c e

d e l i v e r y w i l l be treated as a dependent v a r i a b l e determined by features
of a community,
work;

its environment, and its o v e r a l l

social

services net­

the e f f e c t a n y p a r t i c u l a r s e r v i c e i n t e g r a t i o n has on s e r v i c e

d e l i v e r y w i l l be considered in the context of each separate analysis.

Finally,

a government agency providing resources may be interested in

the aggregate effectiveness of the service:

is the l e v e l of unmet need

that provoked the response diminishing as a result of the service being
provided?

T his d i m e n s i o n , w h i c h t o u c h e s on the i s s u e s of h o w a need

b e c o m e s d e f i n e d , who d e c i d e s what r e a c t i o n s are a p p r o p r i a t e , and who
judges

the r e s u l t s of those r e a c t i o n s ,

dissertation;

but

its

and n e t w o r k a n a l y s i s
essential

political

is b e y o n d

nature means

that

the scope of this
the systems

that u n d e r l i e this d i s s e r t a t i o n w i l l

What Are the "Resources" of a Government Agency?

A government agency has three resources at its disposal

that

to this study:
it m a y g r a n t

(directly,

or

(1) m o n e y (or r e s o u r c e s

to o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s ;

through request

organization;

and (3) the power

by

administrative

means

a l s o be

to its analysis.

3.

evant

theory

of

that are r e l ­

that w o u l d c o s t mo n e y )
(2)

the

power

to cr e a t e

to a n o t h e r g o v e r n m e n t agency) a n e w
to regulate

control

in

existing
the

case

organizations
of

—

lower-level

10

g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c i e s , and by m e a n s of l a w e n f o r c e m e n t in the case of
non-governmental organizations.

Governments
collected,

also
to

have

the p o wer

transfer wealth

to tax and,

among

b y m e a n s of the taxes

categories

of

persons.

Although

these more general powers cle a r l y can be and are used to affect social
service delivery,

to analyze their impact w o u l d

require data not c o l ­

lected in the research project on which this dissertation is based;

so

such powers w i l l not be considered here.

4.

What is a "Category of Constituents"?

The categorization of constituents is central
i z a t i o n of

a social

s e r v i c e s system.

to the political

organ­

Two d i f f e r e n t a p p r o a c h e s

ca t e g o r i z a t i o n provide quite different bases

of p o w e r

to

for s e r v i c e

recipients.

In

the f i r s t a p p r o a c h ,

characteristics

and

are then specified.
significance:

women,

a c a t e g o r y is b a s e d o n n o n - s e r v i c e - r e l a t e d

the service

needs

of

individuals

in

the category

Such categories typically have social or political
blacks,

Hispanics,

inhabitants of the Sixth Ward.

Because of this more general social or political

significance, members

of the category have, or potentially have, access to centers of politi­
cal power that can require social service organizations to change their
d e l i v e r y behavior.
equal

footing

with

In such a situation clients are more nearly on an
the

social

service

organizations

existing organizations can serve as intermediaries

that serve

for them.

them:

u
In the s e c o n d a p p r o a c h ,
vicers)

needed.

a c a t e g o r y Is d e f i n e d

Typically medical

services,

on the basis of s e r ­

mental

health

and vocational services are organized on this basis.
categorization

l e a v e s the c l i e n t group,

services,

This approach to

t a k e n as a w h o l e , w i t h o u t

organizational ties to political centers of power.

In such a situation

clients have a less than equal relationship with organizations provid­
ing services,

since the very structure of the situation means

service organizations define clients' needs -- or at
means of meeting

least

that the

the proper

them.

The analysis in this dissertation does not include political systems at
any

level,

clients.

so no hypotheses directly

relate

to the categorization of

S u c h c a t e g o r i z a t i o n w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d o n l y in p r o p o s i n g

further research on the effect of the local and national environment on
community social service agency networks.

C.

The Context of Service D e l i v e r y

Earlier five levels of analysis were identified for use in this disser­
tation:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

individual organizations;
relationships between organizations (organizational dyads);
networks of social service organizations;
the local environment of the social service network; and
the larger (national) environment of the social service
network.

The focal

l e v e l of analysis in this dissertation w i l l be the network of

relations

among

(level

3).

agencies

that deliver

social

services

in a community

12
H i g h e r l e v e l s of a n a l y s i s are not the f o c u s b e c a u s e s o c i a l s e r v i c e s
must be delivered where people are.

Future communication and transpor­

tation systems may make it possible to d e l i v e r services at long range,
or

to gather clients

from great distances for service.

ever, most material goods and personal

For now,

how­

services are directly provided

by loc al organizations.

It is true that organizations at many l e v e l s affect service delivery at
the local level.

Local organizations of a l l

sorts affect social ser­

vice d e l i v e r y through economic impact and political influence.
al,

state,

national,

and

international

organizations

strongly

Region­
affect

the economic and political environments that surround local communities
and their social service organizations, and in many cases more directly
affect the community through a local office or branch.

Yet no matter how significant organizations beyond the local
be,

level may

no matter how highly variables at some other l e v e l may correlate

with service d e livery at the local

level,

the effects of these organ­

izations and variables will be mediated through the activities of local
organizations; and the aggregate effects of local organizational activ­
ities w i l l be mediated through the activities of the specific organiza­
tions p r o v i d i n g s o c i a l services.

A n y i n t e r v e n i n g agent, therefore,

must understand the functioning of the local social services network in
a community if intervention —

no matter at what l e v e l —

Is to have a

reasonable chance of accomplishing the outcomes the intervenor intends.

13
Aldrich,

reporting his study of manpower

York cities, concluded that l evel four

training organizations in New

(the local environment) was the

m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e l e v e l of a n a l y s i s (1972, p. 16): "...[L]ocal c o n d i ­
tions are

important determinants of actual

manpower and related organizations.
the

relevant

area...."

level

behavior of the network of

These considerations

of a n a l y s i s is

the c o m m u n i t y ,

suggest

that

or m e t r o p o l i t a n

His c o n c l u s i o n is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the focus h e r e on l e v e l

three in two ways:

(1) since the range of organizations he studied was

m u c h n a r r o w e r than that st u d i e d for this d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
sidered "lo ca l conditions" included
social service agencies ge ner a l l y ;

what he c o n ­

the m a j o r i t y of the n e t w o r k of

(2) if l o c a l

conditions strongly

affect social service network behavior, then intervention at that level
must be informed by a careful explication of the consequences of vari­
ous local conditions for actual social service network behavior.

Organizational behavior is not the focus of this dissertation because,
at l e a s t for c i t i e s of the size stu d i e d , the n u m b e r of o r g a n i z a t i o n s
capable of providing any given social service is large enough that the
character
here —

of

service delivery —

at least on the two dimensions used

depends on more than organizational characteristics.

Similarly

the n u m b e r of d y a d s amo ng s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s is g r e a t e n o u g h that
the effects of individual dyad charcteristics are swamped by the opera­
tion of the o v e r a l l system.

Nearly

two d e c a d e s ago W a r r e n i d e n t i f i e d the l o c a l

network ( le v e l 3)

social service

as crucial to understanding social service delivery.

Fo l l o w i n g research on social service d el i v e r y in three major cities, he

14
defined
social

the " i n t e r o r g a n i z a t l o n a l

f i e l d " as a k e y

s e r v i c e a g e n c y i n t e r a c t i o n (1967a,

p. 308):

to u n d e r s t a n d i n g
"The c o n c e p t of

interorganizatlonal field is based on the observation that the interaction b e t w e e n two o r g a n i z a t i o n s is a f f e c t e d , in p a r t at least, by the
nature of the organizational pattern or network within which they find
themselves."
major

This assessment was echoed by the executive manager of a

project that was part of a national

dinating social

The analysis

experiment

service delivery (Buckman,

in this dissertation,

then,

on ways of coor­

1971, p. 30).

will

focuB on the network of

relationships among those organizations in a community that are provid­
ing s o c i a l s e r v i c e s .

To a r t i c u l a t e the fo r c e s that a f f e c t that n e t ­

w o r k a n d the e f f e c t s that n e t w o r k has,

we w i l l l o o k at the impact of

d y a d s on the n e t w o r k ,

the i m p a c t of b o t h l o c a l and

non l o c a l

and v i c e v e r s a ,

phenomena on that network,

and the relationship between dyads

and organizational characteristics.

To provide a common framework for

analysis,

va r i a b l e s at a l l leve ls w i l l be interpreted in network terms.

CHAPTER 2
A DISCUSSION OF RELEVANT. PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED LITERATURE

The range of analysis in this dissertation is sufficiently great that a
complete r e v i e w of all relevant literature w o u l d overshadow the report
of the r e s e a r c h i ts e l f .

The f o r m a t i o n of h y p o t h e s e s and the i n t e r ­

pretation of data i n v o l v e the orienting framework of systems theory and
the methodological
sizeable literature.

framework of network analysis —

each area having a

The variables are from five l e v e l s of analysis —

from individual organizations to the national system —

and each leve l

of analysis also encompasses an extensive literature.

In m o s t

of

th ese s e v e n

l i t e r a t u r e s o n l y one or a fe w key a r t i c l e s

and/or books p r o v i d e d specific g uidance
re vie w of the

for this d i s s e r t a t i o n .

The

literature w i l l consist primarily of a detailed discus­

sion of these articles and books. Certain other articles and books will
be mentioned as they relate to the central points of these key works.

A. Systems Theory as an Orienting Framework

The

elements

of a systems orientation were explored by Walter Buckley

In Sociology and Modern Systems Theory (1967).

A discussion of certain

parts of Buckley's presentation w i l l provide the necessary introduction
to the concepts used here.

15

16
1.

B u c k l e y says (1967,

What Are Systems?

p. 41): "The k i n d of s y s t e m we are i n t e r e s t e d in

m a y be d e s c r i b e d g e n e r a l l y as a c o m p l e x of e l e m e n t s

or c o m p o n e n t s

d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d in a c a u s a l n e t w o r k , s u c h that e ac h
component is related

to at least some others

w a y w i t h i n a n y p a r t i c u l a r p e r i o d of time."
four ingredients central

in a more or less stable
Thi3 q u o t a t i o n sp e c i f i e s

to the concept "system":

(1)

entities of some sort;

(2)

defined relations among the entities;

(3)

a causal quality to the relations —

analysis of the effects

generated in (through) the relations;
(4)

rel a t i v e stability to the relations.

The first, se c o n d , and fou rth e l e m e n t s a re c o m m o n to a n y t h e o r e t i c a l
model.

D e f i n e d e n t i t i e s and r e l a t i o n s a m on g

t h e m a r e n e c e s s a r y to

d e s c r i b e an y p h e n o m e n a ; and r e l a t i v e s t a b i l i t y is a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l
necessity:

o n l y "relat ive ly stable" phenomena stay around long enough

to be s tu d i e d , or are s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d f r om r a n d o m b a c k ­
ground

signals

to be noticed.

(Obviously as observational

tools

im­

p r o v e in an y f i e l d , " r e l a t i v e s t a b i l i t y " r e q u i r e s l e s s d u r a t i o n and
permits g r e a t e r variability.)

The c r u c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t o r b e t w e e n a

systems and a non-systems approach is ingredient

three. For a model

to

r e p r e s e n t a system, it m u s t c o n t a i n m o r e t h a n t a x o n o m i c or c o r r e l a ­
tional

connections.

A

systems model

and explain whate ver is "going on" —

must

be

constructed

the m ot i v e forces.

to describe

17
2.

Buckley

Identifies

three

Levels of Systems

levels

of complexity in systems models.

He

argues that social systems are inadequately described by the lower two
levels —

mechanical (equilibrium) and organlsmlc (homeostatic) models.

They require Instead the most complex level: adaptive systems models.

Equilibrium models, he defines, have "elements in mutual interrelation­
ships,

which ma y be in a state of 'equilibrium',

changes

such that any moderate

in the e l e m e n t s or t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s a w a y from the

equilibrium position are counterbalanced by changes
it" (p. 9).

tending to restore

T h e y d e s c r i b e "t y p e s of s y s t e m s w hic h ,

equilibrium point,

typically lose organization,

in m o v i n g to an

and then tend to hold

that m i ni mum l e v e l within r e l a ti vel y n arrow conditions of disturbance"
(p. 40).

" H o m e o s t a t i c m o d e l s a p p l y to s y s t e m s t e n d i n g to m a i n t a i n a

given, r e l a t i v e l y high, level of organization against everpresent ten­
d e n c i e s to r e d u c e it" (p. 40).

On the o t h e r hand, B u c k l e y says, "The c o m p l e x a d a p t i v e s y s t e m m o d e l
applies

to systems characterized by

organization;

... they thrive on,

the

elaboration

in fact depend on,

'variety' in the e n v i r o n m e n t " (p. 40).

l e v e l s of analysis (p. 5).

evolution

of

'disturbances' and

B u c k l e y a s s e r t s that a d a p t i v e

s y s t e m s m o d e l s are nee d e d for the p s y c h o l o g i c a l ,
sociocultural

and

p h y l o g e n e t i c , and

18
3,

Buckley is careful

The Analysis of Adaptive Systems

to say that "when we deal w i th the more open systems

with a more flexible structure,

the distinction between the boundaries

and the environment becomes a more and more arbitrary matter, dependent
on the p u r p o s e s of the o b s e r v e r " (p. 41). It is t h e r e f o r e m o r e u s e f u l
to

talk about an adaptive process, where a system and its environment

are matched in such a way that the process becomes possible.

Although

a system may be capable of engaging in an adaptive process,

its doing

so depends on its location in an appropriate environment.

H a w l e y (1981, p. 225) for e x a m p l e s u g g e s t s that the n a t u r e of a c o m ­
munity

system

the absence

depends

of change

on

the changeability

it might be assumed

approaches an equilibrium."

In Buckley's

of

its

that

environment:

the power distribution

terms,

without

of the external environment the system becomes homeostatic.
in his model of oligopolistic interfirm behavior,
assumptions

u [I]n

the stimulus
Similarly,

Williamson's (1965)

lead to an equilibrium arrangement when only his interfirm

v a r i a b l e s are v ar i e d ;

the e n v i r o n m e n t a l

variable

is the source of

change in equilibrium point.

Since a system cannot be determined

to be adaptive

s i m p l y b y e x a m i n i n g the s y s t e m i t s e l f ,

in Buckley's sense

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a d a p t i v e

systems requires analysis of the adaptive processes that encompass both
the systems and their environments.

The key distinction to be made is

between homeostatic and adaptive systems;

so if adaptive systems cannot

be identified without reference to their environments, then neither can
homeostatic

systems.

The situation d e v o l v e s

to this:

if one identi-

19
fles an adaptive process,
system;

but

if one

then one has by definition found an adaptive

identifies

a homeostatic

s y s t e m w i t h i n its e n ­

vironment, one cannot know whether the system is at best homeostatic or
whether the environment contains too few "disturbances" and

too little

"variety" to cause the system to d isplay "the elaboration and evolution
of

organization"

that

is

the

defining

characteristic

of

adaptive

systems.

There is also the difficulty,

in trying to distinguish homeostatic from

adaptive systems, of recognizing built-in d e v elo pm ent al sequences that
o c c u r r e l a t i v e l y u n i f o r m l y in the p r e s e n c e of n e c e s s a r y conditions.
Systems displaying such developmental

sequences woul d show elaboration

of organization of a sort that should be distinguished from the rela­
ti ve l y idiosyncratic development to be expected from an adaptive system
in the presence of sufficient conditions.

If then, one intends to make empirical distinctions between homeostatic
and

adaptive

syst em s,

k n o w l e d g e of

the type of s y s t e m u n d e r s t u d y

should be sufficiently advanced that some models

of the developmental

s e q u e n c e s of the s y s t e m h a v e a t t r a c t e d g e n e r a l

a g r e e m e n t am ong r e ­

searchers,
ety

of

and that the behavior of specimens of the system in a v ar i­

environments

have

been described

and modeled

in detail

(which

would require some theoretical framework for specifying relevant dimen­
sions of environments).

Yet the study of organizations,

the

level of

a n a l y s i s u s e d in this d i s s e r t a t i o n that has the g r e a t e s t v o l u m e of
literature,

is so little advanced that it is s t i l l meaningful to write

a beginning taxonomy (McKelvey,

1982).

20
For

Buckley's distinctions

structure,

therefore,

to be meaningful

in an

one must assume the lev e l

analysis

of

social

of system exemplified

by entities at a certain le vel of analysis, and use the fruitfulness of
the o v e r a l l

model

that Includes one's assumptions as an indirect test

of the c o r r e c t n e s s of the a s s u m p t i o n s .

One c a n n o t

expect,

at this

stage of social science, to find or de v e l o p precise measures to distin­
guish examples of homeostatic and adaptive systems.

4. What Levels of Social Systems Are What Types of System?

In g e n e r a l ,
tended

s o c i o l o g i s t s ' c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s of s o c i a l

to be homeostatic.

Hawley, for example,

sys t e m s h a v e

says (1981, p. 3A0):

"It Is important to recognize, moreover, that a social system
is a l o o s e l y k n i t fab r i c of r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
In c o n s e q u e n c e
there is a certain amount of independent varia bil it y among the
interdependent parts.
But fl exibility of this nature should
not be t a k e n for c h a n g e a b i l i t y .
On the c o n t r a r y , it is just
that flex ibi li ty which enables a structure of relationships to
withstand random shifts and pressures.
Too great a rigidity
wo u l d subject a system to a continuous risk of destruction in
an unstable environment."

At

the organizational

150) n o t e

level

th ree c u r r e n t s

of analysis,

of

th o u g h t

on

changes in populations of organizations:

Hannan and Freeman (1984,
structural

that individual

organizations change

little;

which assumes that individ ual o r g a n i z a t i o n s
o r d e r to a d a p t

to their e n v i r o n m e n t s ;

assumes that individual

organizations

response to their environments.

behavioral

(1) population ecology, which

assumes that changes occur because new organizations
and

and

p.

replace old ones,

(2) rational

change

change,

s i g n i f i c a n t l y in

and (3) r a n d o m change, w h i c h

change

significantly but not in

Only the second of these is consistent

with the v i e w that organizations can be adaptive systems.

21
The first view,
tions

are

which

is consistent with an assumption that organiza­

homeostatic

Stinchcombe (1965),

systems,

is

supported

by

diverse

writers.

examining the pattern of organizational founding in

recent history, concluded,
"The o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i n v e n t i o n s t ha t c a n be m a d e at a p a r ­
ticular time in history depend on the social technology a v a i l ­
a b l e at the time.
Organizations which h av e purposes that can
be efficiently reached with the s o c i a l l y p o s s i b l e o r g a n i z a ­
t i o n a l f o r m s tend to be f o u n d e d d u r i n g the p e r i o d in w h i c h
they have become possible.
Then, both because they can func­
tion e f f e c t i v e l y with those organizational forms, and because
the forms tend to become institutionalized,
the basic struc­
ture of the organization tends to remain r e l a t i v e l y stable"
(p. 133).

E m e r y a n d T r i s t (1965), h a v i n g s t u d i e d
firms and individual
they op e r a t e d

farmers in postwar Great Britain,

in a " t u r b u l e n t " e n v i r o n m e n t :

p r o p e r t i e s a r i s e no t s i m p l y
organizations,

the d i f f i c u l t i e s of c a n n i n g

but also

one

itself"; so

that

in w h i c h " dy n a m i c

f r o m the i n t e r a c t i o n

from the field

concluded

of

the c o m p o n e n t

that for organiza­

tions in the e n v i r o n m e n t , "[tjhe c o n s e q u e n c e s w h i c h f l o w f r o m their
a c t i o n s l e a d off in w a y s that b e c o m e i n c r e a s i n g l y u n p r e d i c t a b l e ..."
(p.

275).

They further c o ncluded

that o r g a n i z a t i o n s

in the m o d e r n

w o r l d c a n n o t p o s s i b l y o b t a i n e n o u g h i n f o r m a t i o n to p r e d i c t the con­
s e q u e n c e s of thei r a ct i o n s , and that the s t a b i l i z a t i o n of o r g a n i z a ­
tional beha vio r w i l l
val u e s which w i l l
institutionalize

have to come from the develo pme nt of a new set of

relate organizations

the organizations

to the wider

society and

thus

(p. 279).

E m e r y an d Trist's c o n c l u s i o n is e c h o e d by H a n n a n and F r e e m a n t h e m ­
selves:
favors

"Selection in populations of organizations in modern societies
forms with high reliability of performance and

high levels

of

22
a c c o u n t a b i l i t y " (1984, p. 154).

T h e y go on to c o n t e n d (p.

155) that

M [s] e l e c t i o n w i t h i n p o p u l a t i o n s of organizations in modern societies
favors

organizations whose

structures

have

high

inertia."

Such a

perception apparently underlay one of the most sophisticated models of
organizational behavior developed to date, that of Hummon, Doreian, and
T e u t e r (1975); f o r t h ei r m a t h e m a t i c a l m o d e l b u i l d s in an e x p l i c i t l y
homeostatic process.

Work consistent with the assumption that organizations are homeostatic
systems

does

not

represent

a single

research

stream.

Hannan

and

Freeman's particular theoretical framework has, however, precipitated a
s i z e a b l e a m o u n t of r e p o r t e d r e s e a r c h in the p a s t d e c a d e ( F r e e m a n and
Hannan,

1975,

Hannan

Brittain and Freeman,
Carroll,
1983;

and

1977;

Hannan

1980; Carroll and Delacroix,

1983; Freeman, Carroll, and Hannan,

and Carroll,

and

Freeman,

1982);

1978;

Delacroix and

1983; Freeman and Hannan,

1984).

The second perspective,
just

Freeman,

that organizations d eli be r a t e l y change to ad­

to t h e ir e n v i r o n m e n t s ,

is c o n s i s t e n t

with

an a s s u m p t i o n

that

o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e a d a p t i v e systems.

D i l l (1958) c o n d u c t e d an e a r l y

study examining e n v i r o n m e n t a l e f f e c t s

on o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e and

functioning.

The two businesses he studied both confronted significant

c h a n g e s in t h e i r e n v i r o n m e n t s , but one f l o u r i s h e d and the o t h e r d e ­
clined.

Dill

detailed several

factors in the environments and struc­

tures of the two organizations that interacted
results;

his a n a l y s i s suggested

to produce the different

that management practices contribute

greatly to an organization's ability to react to its environment.

23
This theme was elaborated by Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) in their report
of th e i r 1963 s t u d y of some U. S. f i rms in the p l a s t i c s , s t a n d a r d i z e d
container,

and consumer food industries.

They rejected the notion that

there is a single best way to organize,

and their data supported their

contention

that different

organizational

practices

and

best suited to different environments (in their study,
a whole stood for the environment).

Although

structures are
the industry as

their data did not

v i d e a n y b a s i s for s e l e c t i n g a r a t i o n a l c h o i c e m o d e l
population ecology model
rational

choice model

to explain their results,

-- contingency theory —

pro­

r a t h e r than a

they did develop a

which assumed

that or­

g a n i z a t i o n s c o u l d and w o u l d use i n f o r m a t i o n to a d a p t t h e m s e l v e s

to

their environments.

C h i l d (1972) e l a b o r a t e d b a s i c c o n t i n g e n c y theory with his concept of
"strategic choice":
in a n

the deliberate

o r g a n i z a t i o n as

to w h a t

o r g a n i z a t i o n o u g h t to be.

choices

of

the "dominant coalition"

the s t r u c t u r e a n d p r e f e r e n c e of the

His d e s c r i p t i o n of c o a l i t i o n a l st r u g g l e ,

however,

an example

Freeman,

does not tie the outcome to conditions in the environment.

The weight

of the third perspective identified by Hannan and

of e v i d e n c e

to d a t e is that o r g a n i z a t i o n s

in d i f f e r e n t

environments differ significantly, but there is no decisive evidence to
compel

a choice between a homeostatic and an adaptive systems model of

organizations.

W ha t can be said

is

that

no

research demonstrates

p a t t e r n s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e that c a n n o t be e x p l a i n e d by a
homeostatic model,

and that the most active current stream of research

on the relationship between organizational variables and organizational

24
environment is grounded in a theory (population ecology)

that presumes

organizations are not adaptive systems.

No research on organizational dyads provides a good test of the useful**
ness of a homeostatic versus an adaptive systems model.

Most research

i n v o l v i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d y a d s u s es th eir p r e s e n c e or a b s e n c e as a
varia bl e in studies focussed on other l e v e l s of analysis.

Individual

s t u d i e s f o c u s s i n g on d y a d s as the o b j e c t of r e s e a r c h c o n t a i n a s s u m p ­
tions m o r e
particular

n e a r l y consistent with one m o d e l
studies

relevant

or th e other,

to this dissertation w i l l

have

and the
those as­

sumptions identified in the discussion of those studies.

The s i t u a t i o n is o n l y a l i t t l e b e t t e r w i t h r e s p e c t
organizations.

to n e t w o r k s

of

W h i l e some s t u d i e s consider the environments of net­

works, there are none that directly test hypotheses about the relation­
ship between network characteristics and environmental

variables.

The

conclusion from one study of interrelationships among government agen­
ci e s in n i n e M i s s o u r i c o u n t i e s c o n t a i n e d this interesting statement,
however (Benson et al.,

pp.

124-5):

"[ I j t s h o u l d n o t be a s s u m e d that a s y s t e m of i n t e r a g e n c y
relationships (even the relative ly small one studied here) is
s u b j e c t , to any l a r g e degree, to r a t i o n a l m a n i p u l a t i o n and
control.
Clearly, some of the variables we have identified
are s u s c e p t i b l e to some de gr e e of r a t i o n a l manipulation....
H o w e v e r , it s eems l i k e l y that the l i m i t s of s u c h r a t i o n a l
manipulation and control are quite restrictive....
If we take
too n a r r o w a v i e w of the p r o b l e m we m a y o v e r e s t i m a t e our
capacities as social analysts and change-agents."

A h o m e o s t a t i c sy stem, no m a t t e r what its c o m p l e x i t y , is u l t i m a t e l y
understandable and rationally c o nt ro lla ble because its operations are

25
finite.

Benson and his colleagues

therefore

point

toward

the conclu­

sion that networks of organizations can be considered adaptive systems.

The q u e s t i o n of the l e v e l of s y s t e m m o d e l a p p r o p r i a t e to l o c a l and
national

environments

need not be investigated

for

this dissertation.

Sinc e the f o c a l l e v e l of a n a l y s i s is the n e t w o r k of s o c i a l s e r v i c e
agencies in a community,

whether the entities at the

lev el s above are

h o m e o s t a t i c or a d a p t i v e has no b e a r i n g on t h e i r e ff e c t on the foc al
level.

The only issue is the complexity of those environments relative

to the local

social service networks,

and that issue must be addressed

I n d i v i d u a l l y for each city.

B.

Social Network Analysis

The concept "network" Is intuitively

straightforward:

"a set of

units

(or nodes) of some kind and the relations of specific types that occur
among them" (Alba,

1982,

p. 42).

Some version of the concept is inevi­

t a b l e in the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of any type of p h e n o m e n o n at any l e v e l of
analysis once the focus of

research

turns

from the characteristics of

entitles to the nature of connections among the entities.

Social network analysis has two u n d e r p i n n i n g

tradit ion s.

The first,

sociometry, was introduced by Moreno (1934) and d eveloped over the next
25 years

primarily

In the context of small

group analysis.

Advanced

mathematical approaches to the data were introduced as early as 1949 by
Festinger.
group l e v e l

The beginning of social

network analysis

beyond

the small

Is a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Barnes' r e p o r t of his 195 2-3 st u d y of

26
the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e of a N o r w e g i a n i s l a n d p a r i s h (1954).
earlier writers are cited (particularly Siramel (1908)),

Although

Barnes' article

initiated anthropological work in which the metaphor of a network began
to take s h a p e as a w o r k i n g tool.
graph theory (Harary,

A d e c a d e l a t e r , the a p p l i c a t i o n of

Cartwright, and Norman,

1965) and the exploration

of bias parameters in comparing random networks
(Fararo

and

Sunshine,

1964) had

laid

to actual network data

a met hodological

foundation

for

systematic sociological exploration.

1.

The Basic Decisions in Network Resarch

The most basic decision in undertaking a network analysis is the defin­
ition of

boundaries.

The

world

populations

of

persons

and

organiza­

tions are c o m p le tel y linked, as illustrated by Milgrara's "small world"
research (Milgram,
1970).

1967; Travers and Milgram,

G i v e n this complete linkage,

1969; Korte and Milgram,

any social network analysis must

be b a s e d on a s u b n e t w o r k : a s u b p o p u l a t i o n of e n t i t i e s d e f i n e d on the
basis of one or more characteristics, or a subset of linkages chosen on
the basis of one or more criteria.
beginning;
population,

describing

Barnes recognized this issue in the

the interpersonal

he observed (1954,

connections

linking his study

pp. 43-44):

"A n e t w o r k of this k i n d has no e x t e r n a l b o u n d a r y , n o r has it
a n y c l e a r - c u t i n t e r n a l divisions....
C e r t a i n l y there are
c l u s t e r s of p e o p l e w h o are m o r e c l o s e l y l i n k e d than others,
but in general the limits of the clusters are vague."

The underlying danger, discussed at some
45) and by Laumann,

Marsdon,

length by A l b a (1982, pp. 43-

and Prensky (1983),

is that arbitrary se­

l e c t i o n of e n t i t i e s and l i n k s for s t u d y c a n e a s i l y o m i t o t h e r s w h o se

27
importance to the subnetwork is greater than many of those selected.
primary

responsibility of a network researcher,

then,

A

is to show that

the subnetwork selected for study is m e a n i n g f u l l y bounded for purposes
of the study.

The

second

pivotal

is sue

in n e t w o r k r e s e a r c h

(strandedness) of relationships:
entities.

the number and

The m ul ti p l e x i t y of relationships

is

the m u l t i p l e x i t y

types of

links between

is worth studying in its

o w n right, s i n c e it p r o v i d e s a c l u e to the o v e r a l l

s t r e n g t h of ties

b e t w e e n e n t i t i e s ( K a p f ere r, 1969; G r a n o v e t t e r , 1973); but in g e n e r a l
the problem is choosing what links to record in order best to study the
phenomena on which the research is focussed.
tion relating

the particular

linkages

A well-re as one d explica­

chosen

to

the

substance

of

the

r e s e a r c h is rare in the s o c i a l n e t w o r k l i t e r a t u r e ; in the a b s e n c e of
such a j u s t i f i c a t i o n it is d i f f i c u l t to k n o w just what it is that has
been measured.
determining

Bu rt (1983) has d e t a i l e d a p r e t e s t i n g t e c h n iq ue, for

o ve r l a p

in

linkage concepts

within

individual

human

sub­

p o p u l a t i o n s , t ha t p e r m i t s the s e l e c t i o n of q u e s t i o n s m o s t l i k e l y to
obtain the information wanted by a researcher.

2.

Data Collection Issues in Network Research

Once a subpopulation among which to examine
pects of relationships
lems

relationships,

to be measured, h a v e been defined,

in the collection of data must be addressed.

One

and the as­
knotty prob­

central

concern

is the source of data: typically social network data have been gathered
by

asking

participants

in

the

network

to

provide

information.

K i l l w o r t h and Bernard have done a series of studies, however, that call

28
into

serious

question how c losely

linkages correspond
and Bernard,

1976;

Informants'

attributions

of

network

to objective measures of those linkages (Killworth
Bernard and Killworth,

1977;

Kilworth and Bernard,

1979; B e r n a r d , K i l l w o r t h , and S ai l e r , 1980; Be r n a r d , K i l l w o r t h , and
Sailer,

1981).

structural
tive

data

features are the same
sets

underscores
untenable
data sets,

Burt and Bittner (1981) reason convincingly that basic

that Kill wor th

the fact

that

earlier naive

and Bernard

analyzed;

but

and objec­

the exchange

the Kill wor th and Bernard research has made

assumptions

and has forced more

tions under which attributional
tive

in both the attributional

about

the

isomorphism of

sophisticated assessment of

the

two

the condi­

can safely be used in place of objec­

data.

A second,

r e l a t e d m a j o r c o n c e r n is the w o r k i n g d e f i n i t i o n of a l i n k

between two entities.

When objective measures

are used,

this concern

is p r i m a r i l y a m a t t e r of d e f i n i t i o n ; but w h e n i n f o r m a n t s are used to
identify the relationships in which they are involved,
tion of

reciprocity becomes problematic:

does a network link exist if

e i t h e r p a r t y r e p o r t s it, or o n l y if b o t h do?
Fararo

and

Sunshine,

1964) use

the interpreta­

Some s t u d i e s (such as

the proportion of

reciprocated choices

as d a t a in its o w n right; b u t mo st n e t w o r k r e s e a r c h does not i n v o l v e
s u c h q u e s t i o n s , and the d e c i s i o n on u n r e c i p r o c a t e d c h o i c e s is ofte n
made with no particular justification and without regard to the dangers
shown by Bernard and Killworth's research.

In this dissertation,

t i c u l a r c h o i c e s to use one or the o t h e r d e f i n i t i o n w i l l
(and explained
answered.

par­

be b as e d on

in the context of) the particular question that must be

This concern w i l l prove important in the study of very large

29
n e t w o r k s w h o s e siz e r e q u i r e s s a m p l i n g ; e x p l o r a t i o n of this a r e a has
o n l y recently begun (Granovetter,
Erickson and Nosunchuck,

1976; B e n i g e r ,

1976; Burt,

1981;

1983).

A t h i r d m a j o r d e c i s i o n is the

level

of d a t a

to be c o l l e c t e d .

The

s o c i a l n e t w o r k r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e a l m o s t e x c l u s i v e l y c o n s i s t s of
studies based on binary data —
or it

doesn't —

although

a

link between entities either exists

some major

computer

n e t w o r k a n a l y s i s ( N E G O P Y (Richards,
permit a range of values
data are o b v iou sl y

programs

to be associated with network links.

that differ drastically in duration,

for

1975) and STRUCTURE (Burt, 1977))

poor measures of relationships.

frequency -- to name

av a i l a b l e

volume

Binary

They equate links

of resource exchange,

and

three dimensions that o b v i o u s l y affect the actual

workings of any social network.

Binary data, nevertheless, are simpler

to collect; and the lev el of graph theory that has provided many of the
mathematical

t o o l s for n e t w o r k a n a l y s i s

result,

most

studies (including

based),

use binary data.

3.

a s s u m e s b i n a r y data.

As a

the one on which this dissertation is

Measures of Network Characteristics

A n u m b e r of m e a s u r e s of n e t w o r k s c a n be s u b s u m e d u n d e r the c o n c e p t
connectedness. When the focus is on an individual
refers

to the existence (and

length) of chains

of

entity, this concept
connections

between

that e n t i t y a n d o t h e r e n t i t i e s of i n t e r e s t (an e g o c e n t r i c network).
When

comparing

entire networks,

one

compares

them on the distribution

of chains relating pairs of entities or types of entitles.

Many early

social network studies dealt with egocentric networks and their zones:

30
first-order
focussed

(those

entities

second-order zones

linked

directly

the

entity

to the entity

f o c u s s e d on v i a e n t i t i e s in the f i r s t - o r d e r zone), etc.

(See Barnes'

discussion

Mitchell

(1969).)

of

network

Such work

(those entities

to

linked

(1969)

on),

z ones

analysis

is less

and

the

various

frequent now.

studies

Measures

in

relevant

to c o n n e c t e d n e s s i n c l u d e the d i a m e t e r (the g r e a t e s t n u m b e r of l i n k s
necessary to connect two entities in a network),

average distance (the

m e a n n u m b e r of l i n k s b e t w e e n p airs of e n t i t i e s in the network), and
density (the number of direct

links divided

by

the number of pairs of

en tities).

An i m p o r t a n t s t r e a m of r e s e a r c h on p a t t e r n s in c o n n e c t e d n e s s has i n ­
volved

the d e f i n i t i o n and a p p l i c a t i o n of v a r i o u s

network formation.

forms of bias in

The concept of bias refers in general to a tendency

for certain types of linkage patterns to occur more often than would be
expected if network links were generated in simple random fashion.
A, B, and C represent entities in a network,

If

then:

—

r e c i p r o c i t y b i a s is a t e n d e n c y for c h o i c e s
accompanied by choices from B to A;

from

A to B to be

--

transitivity bias is a tendency for choices from A to B and from B
to C to be accompanied by choices from A to C;

—

sibling bias Is a tendency for choices from A to B and from A to C
to be accompanied b y choices from B to C and C to B;

—

inbreeding bias is a tendency for members of predefined aggregates
of e n t i t i e s to c h o o s e othe rs w i t h i n t h e i r a g g r e g a t e rat h e r than
those outside it.

Fararo and Sunshine (1964) provided a good description of bias general­
l y (PP*

11-30), and of r e c i p r o c a t i o n and s i b l i n g bias in p a r t i c u l a r

(pp. 25-27).
bias.

Fararo (1981) discussed both of these and also

inbreeding

31
Another

category

centrality.

of

Important

network

measures

W i t h r e s p e c t to an i n d i v i d u a l

is

measures

of

e nt i t y , the c o n c e p t of

centrality is Intuitively obvious, although examination has shown that
there are m u l t i p l e m e a s u r e s w i t h d i f f e r e n t i m p l i c a t i o n s .

In ent ire

n e t w o r k s , m e a s u r e s of c e n t r a l i t y h a v e to do w i t h the d i s t r i b u t i o n of
centrality measures for entities.

Linton Freeman (1977,

the basic exploration of measures of centrality,

at

1979) has done

length concluding

that betweenness (placement on chains of links between other entities)
is the best (Freeman,

Hoede, and Mulho lla nd,

1980).

A l a r g e l i t e r a t u r e has d e v e l o p e d a r o u n d the c o n c e p t of p o s i t i o n and
m e t h o d s of d e t e r m i n i n g e n t i t i e s
network.

that

share a common position

The first wide ly used algorithm for detecting

in a

jointly occu­

pied p o s i t i o n s in n e t w o r k s was p u b l i s h e d by H a r r i s o n W h i t e (White,
Boorman,

and

Breiger,

1976;

been explored in detail

Boorman and White,

1976).

The concept has

in numerous articles by Burt (see Burt,

1982,

for a summary of his initial work and a complete bibliography), and has
provoked a plethora of methodological
basic concept

and

substantive

is that entities with identical

work are eq uiv ale nt for purposes of analysis.

articles.

sets of links

The

in a net­

Methodological work has

focussed on efficient mechanisms for detecting such sets of equivalent
entities,

and on the consequences of relaxing

in linkage required
at describing

to define equivalence.

the equivalence

s o r t e d networks.

structures

the degree of similarity

Substantive work has aimed
(called

blockmodels)

of

as­

32
4.

The Number of Entities Considered at Once

In general, network studies are concentrated in two levels of analysis:
the dyadic link that is the basic unit of information,
s t r u c t u r e of

the n e t w o r k u n d e r consideration.

n or m a l l y are based on statistical
tional counts.
than two,

measures

and the ove r a l l

Whole network studies

derived

from dyadic

rela­

Networks could be examined using entity subsets larger

however,

and in fact a great deal of work has been done with

triads.

The advantage

to using

larger subsets than pairs is that they provide

much greater complexity for examining network data. For binary,
ti a l l y reciprocal
nection,

relations,

a dyad has four possible states:

asymmetric connection in one direction,

poten­
no con­

asymmetric connection

in the o t h e r d i r e c t i o n , a n d s y m m e t r i c c o n n e c t i o n .

These four states

r e p r e s e n t t hree c o m b i n a t i o n s of types of tie (no tie, one a s y m m e t r i c
tie,

and one symmetric tie), and three sets of structurally equivalent

states.

For t r i a d s in the same

states,

10 c o m b i n a t i o n s of type of tie, an d 16 s e t s of s t r u c t u r a l l y

equivalent

states. For tet r a d s

type of data,

there are 64 p o s s i b l e

t here are 4,096 p o s s i b l e states,

28

combinations of type of tie, and over 200 sets of structurally equiva­
l e n t states.

(The l a s t set of n u m b e r s h e l p s

expl a i n why work with

entity sets larger than three has been v i r t u a l l y nonexistent).

The basis for triad research lies in the fact that in a random network,
triads in different
e q u a l l y common.

states but with the same number of links would be

Given a probability

for

forming any gi ven

link,

the

e x p e c t e d f r e q u e n c y of e a ch of the 16 s t r u c t u r a l types of triads in a

33
r a n d o m net

ca n

thus

be computed.

To

the

ext ent,

then,

that a

re­

sea rc h e r ' s q u e s t i o n c a n be p os e d as a bias In f a v o r of c e r t a i n triad
configurations, a network can be analyzed and the departure from random
tested

for

statistical

significance.

Summaries of triad

g i v e n in Davis (1979) and Hol la nd and Leinhardt (1983).

research are
O bviously

the

r e s e a r c h on bias p a r a m e t e r s in n e t w o r k s m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r o v e r l a p s
s u b s t a n t i v e l y w i t h triad a n a l y s i s ;

but the two h a v e b e e n d e v e l o p e d

p a r a l l e l to each other without theoretical combination.

C.

The Interaction of Organizational Characteristics
and Dyad Formation

The l o w e s t l e v e l of a n a l y s i s in this d i s s e r t a t i o n is that of the i n ­
d i v i d u a l organization.

The first a n a l y s i s of i n t e r e s t c o n c e r n s the

relationships among variables at the organizational lev el and variables
at the l e v e l of d y a d i c i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n o r g a n i z a t i o n s .

The m o s t

o f t e n c i t e d e m p i r i c a l s t u d y of this sort is the one done by A i k e n and
Hage

(1968).

their original

Subsequent work has been replication and elaboration of
research.

Aiken and Hage found that organizations participating in larger numbers
of joint programs with other organizations
complex,

(b) to be more innovative,

were

likely (a) to be more

(c) to h av e more active internal

communication channels, and (d) to h a v e m o r e d e c e n t r a l i z e d d e c i s i o n ­
making structures (although this result was not statistically signifi­
cant).

T h e y had a l s o e x p e c t e d to find an i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p w it h

formalization,

but their data were inconsistent with this expectation.

34
T h e i r data, g a t h e r e d in 1967, w er e o b t a i n e d f rom s i x t e e n " h e a l t h and
w e l f a r e o r g a n i z a t i o n s in a l a r g e m i d w e s t e r n m e t r o p o l i s [ M i l w a u k e e ,
Wisconsin]
(pp.

376-7).

... that p r o v i d e ... s e r v i c e s

for the m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d "

Their dependent measure was

the number of joint programs

in w h i c h an o r g a n i z a t i o n p a r t i c i p a t e d that r e q u i r e d a c o m m i t m e n t of
resources.

Their independent measures,

the zero-order Pearson correla­

tions w i t h the d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e , and the s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s , are
shown in table 2C-1.

Table 2C-1
The Aiken-Hage Independent Variables
and Their Zero-Order Correlations with Number of Joint Programs

variable
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

correlation

Complexity
-- Index of professional training
—
index of professional activity
-- number of occupations

.15
.60
.87

<P > .10)
Cp < .05)
<P < .001)

Innovation
— no. of new programs (Incl. joint)
— no. of new programs (excl. joint)

.71
.74

<P < .01)
(P < .001)

Internal Communication
— no. of committees
— no. of committee meetings monthly

.47
.83

Cp < .10)
Cp < .001)

Degree of centralization
— index of participation in decision­
making
— index of hierarchy of authority

.30
.33

Cp > .10)
C p > .10)

.13
-.06
-.06

Cp > .10)
Cp > .10)
Cp > .10)

Degree
—
—
—

of formalization
index of job codification
index of rule observation
index of specificity of job

B e c a u s e A i k e n and Hage s t u d i e d o n l y 16 o r g a n i z a t i o n s , a true m u l t i ­
variate' analysis

was

not possible with

their data;

but

they examined

35
several

possible sources of error.

Nonparametric zero-order correla­

tions were compared to their Pearson correlations to test the possibil­
ity that the results
dent variable;
used

stemmed

from a skewed

distribution of

the results were equivalent.

to control

for type of organization,

Partial

size,

the depen­

correlations were

source of funding, and

routineness of work activity (considered a technology variable);

none

showed a significant change from the zero-order correlations.

A i k e n a n d Hage a l s o u s e d p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n to e x a m i n e p a t t e r n s of
relationships among their independent variables.
that both measures of internal

Their results

showed

communication (number of committees and

f r e q u e n c y of mee tin g s ) , o ne m e a s u r e of c o m p l e x i t y ( e x t e r n a l p r o f e s ­
sional

ac t i v i t y by

staff),

a nd i n n o v a t i o n (n u m b e r of n e w p r o g r a m s

introduced), were all strongly interrelated.

Aiken

and Hage

postulated

that effects

f l o w both from organizational

v a r i a b l e s to d y a d i c i n t e r a c t i o n , and f r o m the d y a d i c i n t e r a c t i o n to
organizational
more
tions

variables

complex organizations
create

a need

f or

through interdependencies
dencies,
trol,
ized

(pp.

however,

374-376).

decision-making,

resources

that

can

but

best

with other organizations.

to increased
and

interpretation

are more innovative,

increase problems

thereby leading

Their

of internal
internal

that

the

(or o n l y )
These

that

innova­
be met

interdepen­

coordination and con­

communication,

reduced formalization.

was

Finally,

decentral­
the inter­

dependencies themselves increase the c o m p l e x i t y of the o r g a n i z a t i o n ,
completing the feedback loop.

This model represents the interaction of

an organization with one aspect of its environment as an adaptive,

not

36
a homeostatic,
would

process:

the model specifies no internal mechanism that

limit the Increase of complexity and thus halt the growth of the

process.

A possible explanation of the unexpected results

for formalization is

provided by a study of sixteen general service hospitals done by Morse
(1977).

He

broke down

the concept of formalization into

10 different

measures: 6 having to do with the generation of information,
coordination of processes within the hospital,
of

financial

of

expenditures.

information

Morse's

generation

and

results

financial

2 with the

and 2 with the control

showed

that

formalization

expenditure

correlated

positively with innovation, while formalization of process coordination
correlated negatively.

He concluded that formalization

cannot be con­

sidered a single dimension in studying organizational behavior.

Upon close

examination,

it is clear Aiken and

Hage's measures of for­

malization do not separate the three dimensions Morse Identifies:

each

of the o p i n i o n q u e s t i o n s u s e d in e a c h of t h ei r three m e a s u r e s c o u l d
apply

to a n y or a l l

of Morse's

three d i m e n s i o n s .

This

failure

to

separate dimensions may explain the absence of a statistically signifi­
cant

relationship between

formalization

tions in Aiken and Hage's data,
hypothesized,

but

statistically

and interorganizational

and also

rela­

the tendency (counter to that

insignificant)

for organizations

with

more new programs to show greater formalization.

Aiken and Hage's work,

based on so few cases and thus supporting only a

rudimentary analysis,

was more suggestive

than compelling.

A clearer

37
test of their ideas required a study that could support a more complex
analysis.
cies

In 1974 Paulson reported a study of 138 public health agen­

in Iowa. To the v a r i a b l e s u s e d by A i k e n a nd H a g e in their 1968

study he added four others used by Hage in a 1965 article proposing an
a x i o m a t i c t h e o r y of o r g a n i z a t i o n s :
satisfaction,

and effectiveness.

stratification,

efficiency,

job

An initial correlational analysis of

these data replicated Aiken's and Hage's basic

findings.

Paulson assumed that organizational var iab les explained the development
of interorganizational relations —

an asymmetric model rather than the

reciprocal one suggested by Aiken and Hage.

He therefore established a

c a u s a l o r d e r i n g a m o n g the ten v a r i a b l e s and c a r r i e d o ut an i n i t i a l ,
f u l l y r e c u r s i v e , p a t h an a l y s i s .

P a t h s w i t h p r o b a b i l i t i e s l e s s than

0.15 in the initial analysis were eliminated;
"job satisfaction" was dropped.
in a second path analysis.
(Paulson,

as a result the variable

The remaining paths were then examined

The matrix of

resulting

path coefficients

1974, p. 327) is g i ve n in Table 2C-2.

Table 2C-2
Path Coefficients in Paulson's Model
comp
complexity
stratification
centralization
formalization
communication
efficiency
effectiveness
innovation

—
—
—
-—
—
—
--

stra

cent

form

comm

efcy

efct

inno

.04
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

.19
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

.13
—
.17
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
.27
.16
—
—
—
--

—
—
.14
—
—
—
—
--

—
.12
-.18
—
—
—
—
--

—
.12
.12
—
—
.15
.30
--

TOR
.27
—
-.21
—
. 19
-.25
—
.19

38
As

the

table

shows,

involvement
variables

Paulson

found

large

in i n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

(complexity,

direct

relationships

r e l a t i o n s an d e a c h of the four

centralization,

communication,

and

for which Aiken and Hage had gotten large correlations.
correlation for centralization is c o n s i s t e n t ,

innovation)
The negative

s i nc e P a u l s o n m e a s u r e d

centralization in the opposite sense from Aiken and Hage.
A i k e n and
like

between

Also,

like

Hage, P a u l s o n fou nd f o r m a l i z a t i o n to h a v e no e ffect; and,

theirs,

h i s m e a s u r e c o n f o u n d s the d i m e n s i o n s Ho r s e ' s r e s e a r c h

suggests must be separated.

Of

the additional

vari abl es

Paulson introduced,

ratio of administrative positions
I m p o rta nt.
preliminary,

only efficiency (the

to expenditures) proved particularly

J o b s a t i s f a c t i o n o c c u r r e d on no s i g n i f i c a n t p a t h s in the
f u l l y recursive path analysis; stratification showed only

w e a k I n d i r e c t e f f e c t s on the f o r m a t i o n of i n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e l a ­
tions;
tion,

effectiveness showed a stronger indirect effect
but no direct effect.

Paulson's analysis,

alth ou gh m eth o d o l o g i c a l l y more

Aiken and Hage's and i n v o l v i n g more variables,
of o r g a n i z a t i o n - e n v i r o n m e n t
the dyadic relationships

variables

than

assumed a simpler model

formed by an organization to affect

the work­

nor did he specify any other environ­

that condition the organization's behavior.

is therefore an equilibrium model —
tem.

sophisticated

inter act io n. He posited no mechanism for

ings of the organization itself,
mental

through innova­

While his findings are useful

Paulson's

the lowe st- le vel model of a sys­
for confirmation and extension of

Aiken and Hage's initial work, his mo del has no utility.

39
K l o n g l a n et al. (1976),
at state,

district,

using data obtained from from 156 organizations

and county l e v e l s of health organizations in Iowa,

replicated the findings of the 1968 Aiken and Hage study.

They suspec­

ted that there w o u l d be dissimilarities among levels, however, and sep­
arately analyzed the three levels.
the o v e r a l l

results

They found (p. 684), in fact,

were not duplicated at any level.

that the processes that lead

to interorganizational

that

They concluded

relationships can­

not be a s s u m e d to be the same for o r g a n i z a t i o n s at d i f f e r e n t h i e r a r ­
chical levels.
model,

A l t h o u g h K l o n g l a n et al. do not p r o p o s e a s p e c i f i c

their conclusion

izations;

supports an adaptive interpretation of organ­

for it implies differing reactions in differing environments.

A startling aspect of a l l three of these studies is the absence of size
as an independent variable.
67,

Blau (Blau and

183-185) firmly established

the strong

Schoenherr,

1971,

model.

62-

relationship between staff

size and the number of types of organizational positions —
of complexity used by Aiken and Hage,

pp.

and a central

the measure

variable in their

While Blau's results were published after the initial Aiken and

H age a r t i c l e ,

the

later

studies were

c a r r i e d out a f t e r

that

time.

Aiken and Hage did use size as a control vari abl e in a partial correla­
tion and found no effect;

but a partial

test for the importance of a potential

correlation does not properly
independent

variable.

Clearly

any further research in this area must include size as a variable.

Of the v a r i a b l e s used in these stud ies ,

organizational

complexity

showed the strongest and most consistent relationship to the formation
of interorganizational relations; internal communication was also fair­

40
ly consistent,
displayed

but its relationship was not as strong;

an e r r a t i c

relationship,

centralization

with Paulson finding the largest.

The r e s u l t s w i t h these v a r i a b l e s h a v e b e e n s t r o n g e n o u g h to r e q u i r e
their inclusion in any further analyses along the same lines.

Formal­

ization never showed the statistically s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h
IOR f o r m a t i o n that was p r e d i c t e d for it; but a m e a s u r e tak i n g Morse's
distinction into account has not yet been tried, and should be included
in f u r t h e r work.

E f f i c i e n c y , u s e d o n l y b y P a u l s o n , s h o w e d a strong

e n o u g h d i r e c t ef f e c t on I O R f o r m a t i o n

to w a r r a n t

its use in fu tu re

analyses.

The part played by the variable innovation seems anomalous.

The zero-

o r d e r c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h I O R f o r m a t i o n was c o n s i s t e n t l y present,
Paulson's analysis
on it by s e v e r a l

showed a r e l a t i v e l y weak direct effect and effects
other variables.

In a d d i t i o n , a s t u d y by C z e p i e l

(1975) of innovation adoption in 26 steel
more employees in v o l v e d in e x t e r n a l

firms showed that firms with

p r o f e s s i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s (one of

A i k e n and Hage's m e a s u r e s of c o m p l e x i t y ) were l e s s l i k e l y
early.

but

(Such fi rms tended to be the l a r g e r ones,

size as a crucial variable.)

to a do p t

again i m p l i c a t i n g

The results to date suggest that a better

e x p l a n a t i o n is n e e d e d of the p l a c e of i n n o v a t i o n in the i n t e r a c t i o n
between organizational

D.

variables and IOR formation.

The Development of Dyadic Interaction

S t u d i e s of d y a d i c i n t e r a c t i o n a mo n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s ,
often been imbedded in research

that

examined

the

w h i l e they h a v e

larger environment,

41
have not theoretically articulated relationships between environmental
and dyadic variables.

Models

of dyadic interaction,

not been models of adaptive systems,

therefore,

hav e

although some are consistent with

the assumptions needed to model an adaptive system.

A l d r i c h (1972, pp. 26-31), f o l l o w i n g M a r r e t t (1971), i d e n t i f i e d four
dimensions

to organizational

dyadic relationships,

each with

two sub-

dimensions :
(1)

formalization: (a) agreement (contracts),
(designated boundary personnel);

and

(b)

structural

(2)

intensity: (a) size of resource investment, and (b) frequency
of interaction;

(3)

r e c i p r o c i t y : (a) r e s o u r c e recip roc ity , and (b) definitional
reciprocity — mutuality of agreement;

(4)

s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n : (a) unit s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n (of
exchanged), and (b) procedural standardization.

the

things

In a l a t e r a r t i c l e (1976b, p. 239) on r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n m a n p o w e r o r ­
ganizations

and

the

Aldrich hypothesized

local

Employment

Service

in Ne w Y o r k

cities,

the causal order of these four variables as they

a f f e c t c o o p e r a t i o n to be f o r m a l i z a t i o n , i n t e ns ity , r e c i p r o c i t y , and
standardization.
dering,

He

interpreted his results

and concluded (p.

260) that " 'cooperation' is [not]

that can be relied on in future transactions."
same year

on

the

to substantiate

relations

between manpower

service organizations g e n e ral ly (1976a),

and

perceived

a resource

In another article the
organizations

he concluded

tion drives intensity, intensity feeds back on itself,
standardization,

this or­

that

and

social

formaliza­

intensity drives

cooperation is a function of the value

of resources invested in the relationship (one dimension of intensity).

42
Aldrich's

propositions

define

only an Incomplete

system,

for no feed­

b ack m e c h a n i s m s are s u g g e s t e d w i t h i n the dyad ( o t h e r than the s e l f increasing nature
ment.

His

of intensity) nor

propositions

between

are consistent,

st a t i c or an a d a p t i v e s y s t e m m od e l .
serving

the dyad and its environ­

however,

with either a homeo­

Added organizational v a r iables

to limit growth of the dyad would be consistent with Aiken and

Hage's c o n t e n t i o n that d y a d i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s a re e n t e r e d into to m eet
i n t e r n a l n e e d s ( h o m e o s t a t i c model).
could serve

to limit

Added env i r o n m e n t a l v a r i a b l e s

the resources a v a i l a b l e or control

the level

of

formalization (adaptive model).

Benson et al.

studied the relationships formed among the county-level

o f f i c e s of four g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c i e s in a n i n e - c o u n t y a r e a of r u r a l
Missouri (Benson et al,

1973; Benson,

1975).

They tested the hypothe­

sis that the following four variables should be at roughly equivalent
le v e l s

(see page 51

tional measures).

for precise definitions,

The variables

are

pp.

listed in

56-58 for the opera­

the causal

order

pos­

tulated by Benson et al.:
(1)

domain consensus (agreement as to each other's turf);

(2)

ideological consensus ( a g r e e m e n t r e g a r d i n g the
undertaken and the approaches to use on them);

(3)

evaluation (of each organization by the other);

(4)

work coordination.

tasks

to be

Benson's p r o p o s i t i o n s c l e a r l y sug g e s t a h o m e o s t a t i c m o d e l of d y a d i c
interaction.

The balancing mechanisms are not specified,

but there is

a clear assumption that an imbalance among the four components provokes
some sort of adjustment.

43
The models suggested by these two studies are complementary.

Benson et

al.

permeated

studied

a system where conflict and potential

the situation (Benson et. al,

1973. pp. v,

vi) —

conflict

hence

their emphasis

on contextual agreements (boundaries and goals) and interorganizational
e v a l u a t i o n as p r e c u r s o r s to w o r k c o o r d i n a t i o n .
system with minimal

Aldrich studied

c o n f l i c t (1976b, p. 234), and hi s v a r i a b l e s ca n

easily be interpreted as a differentiation of Benson's
—

a

fourth variable

w o r k coordination.

A homeostatic model
ies would

include

of dyadic interaction synthesized from these stud­
conflict-moderating

coordination of work;
the processes

processes

to make

possible

the

the coordination then wou ld de v e l o p (according to

specified by Aldrich)

to a point r e l a t i v e l y

w i t h (and i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d to) the l e v e l of c o n f l i c t .
systems model would add variables

in balance
An a d a p t i v e

from the larger environmental system

to affect the dyadic system's conflict-moderating processes and in turn
be affected by work coordinated by the dyad.

The studies discussed
of Interaction,
(1976).

above

contain no propositions

about

the content

an area addressed by Rogers (1974) and K l o n g l a n et al.

Rogers interviewed heads of ten public and five private organ­

i z a t i o n s in s i x t e e n Iowa c o u n t i e s —
countywide

o r g a n i z a t i o n s c h o s e n for their

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and i n v o l vem ent in development programs.

Since not a l l agencies had offices in each county,
interviews.

there were only

116

In each interview Rogers asked the agency head the f o l l o w ­

ing six q u e s t i o n s a b o u t the o t h e r a g e n c i e s w i t h o f f i c e s
c o u n t y (p. 64):

in the same

44
1.

Are you acquainted with the director of agency X?

2.

Have you met with the director of agency X in the past year?

3.

Is agency X on your agency's mailing list, or vice versa?

4.

Has your agency shared, loaned, or provided resources to
in the past two years, or vice versa?

5.

agency X

Does a n y o n e f r om a g e n c y X s e r v e on your B o a r d of D i r e c t o r s , or
vice versa?

6.

Does your unit have any written agreements with agency X?

Rogers used Guttman scaling on his one-time data to test for a uniform
progression

to the content of dyadic

highly reproducible

1

, moderately

v a r i o u s l e v e l s of r e l a t i o n s h i p —

relationships.
scalable

2

His

results -- a

Guttman scale

for

the

s u p p o r t e d his p r o p o s i t i o n that a

dyadic relationship an any given l e v e l of commitment would be li kel y to
exist only if a relationship at the next lower l evel

of commitment had

previously existed.

*

2

In G u t t m a n s c a l i n g , one m e a s u r e s h o w n e a r l y I n v a r i a n t a set of
binary items is in the order of their occurrence.
If item 2 only
occ u r s w h e n i t e m 1 is pres ent , i t e m 3 o n l y o cc u r s w h e n i t e m 2 is
prese nt , a n d so on, t h e n the i tems f or m a p e r f e c t G u t t m a n scale.
The r e p r o d u c i b i l i t y of the s c a l e f orm e d b y any set of items is 1
m i n u s the r a t i o of i n c o n s i s t e n t r e s p o n s e s to t o t a l re spo nse s.
Reproducibility can therefore range from 0 to 1 in value.
Repro­
ducibility is 1 if the items form a perfect scale (no inconsistent
responses).
A reproducibility of 0.9 or better is u s u a l l y taken
to m e a n that the items form a v a l i d s c a l e (Nie et a l , 1975, pp.
532, 533).
Scalability is a ratio.
Its numerator is the difference between
the reproducibility for the scale formed by a set of items and the
minimum reproducibility possible for that set of items g iv e n the
number of positive responses to each item.
The denominator is the
difference between 1 and that lowest possible l evel of reproduci­
bility.
Scalability is thus the proportion of improvement a set
of items p r o v i d e s o v e r the l o w e s t r e p r o d u c i b i l i t y p o s s i b l e for
that set of data.
L i k e r e p r o d u c i b i l i t y , s c a l a b i l i t y m a y range
between 0 and 1. Scalability is no r m a l l y considered adequate only
if it e x c e e d s 0.6 (Nie et al, 1975, p. 533).

45
The G u t t m a n s c a l e r e s u l t i n g f r o m the 1119 r e s p o n s e sets h a d a r e p r o ­
d u c i b i l i t y of 0.91, a n d a s c a l a b i l i t y of 0.66 (p. 66).

Seventy-four

p e r c e n t of the r e s p o n s e s c o n f o r m e d to the o r d e r i n g pre dic t e d .

Exam­

i n a t i o n of the e x c e p t i o n s (p. 66) s h o w e d (1) that o v e r l a p p i n g b o a r d s
could w e l l have been another dimension and thus deleted from the scale;
and (2) that r e s o u r c e and i n f o r m a t i o n e x c h a n g e ( l e v e l s 3 a n d 4) were
almost

interchangeable

the data omitting l e vel

as

to which

occurred

first.

A

re-analysis

of

five and combining levels three and four would

be expected to show higher reproducibility and much higher scalability.

Kl o n g l a n et al.

(1976) performed the same type of study and data anal­

ysis on 156 Iowa h e a l t h o r g a n i z a t i o n o f f i c e s at the state, d i s t r i c t ,
and county levels.

Organization managers at each l e v e l were asked

to

identify the relationships between their own and other agencies at the
same l e v e l

in the same area.

Two r e l a t i o n a l c o n t e n t q u e s t i o n s w er e

a d d e d to the six R o g e r s h a d used: (1) a w a r e n e s s of A g e n c y X, i n s e r t e d
be low Rogers' first question;
Agency X,

(2) participation in joint programs with

Inserted between Rogers' questions 5 and 6.

K l o n g l a n et al. e x p e c t e d to find r e s u l t s s i m i l a r to Rogers' at e a ch
l e v e l (state, d i s t r i c t , county);
b e l o w 0.9 for the state -le ve l

i n s t e a d their r e p r o d u c i b i l i t y was

offices and

0.6 for b o t h the state and county, offices.
dropped

their scalability was below
To e x p l o r e fu r t h e r ,

they

their a priori assumptions about the ordering of the items and

obtained the best empirical ordering at each level.

The best empirical

o r d e r i n g s did not p r o v i d e an a c c e p t a b l e s c a l e at e i t h e r the st ate or
county level,

however;

only

the district

l e vel

data

showed

scalable

46
responses.

The best orderings, moreover,

varied among

levels.

Unfor­

tunately Kl o n g l a n et al. did not analyze cases with responses inconsis­
tent w i t h the s ca l e ,
items Is weakest.
study,

so there is no w a y to d e t e r m i n e w h i c h of t h e i r

It is therefore not possible, as it was with Rogers'

to predict if the deletion of certain items and the combination

of others would produce an acceptable scale.

Three items retained their theoretically predicted order in each of the
empirical orderings:

director awareness of Agency X (lowest),

acquaintance with the director of Agency X (next to lowest),
ten a g r e e m e n t s

with Agency

X (highest).

boards was consistently ordered n ex t
than its

theoretically

predicted

In a d d i t i o n ,

director
and writ­

overlapping

to h i g h e s t (one p o s i t i o n h i g h e r
ordering).

The o t h e r four

items

showed no consistency among le ve ls of organization nor with their the­
or eti ca lly predicted ordering.

In light of their findings, Kl o n g l a n et

al. m o d i f i e d t heir a p p r o a c h and s u g g e s t e d (pp. 685-6)
basic component of interorganizational interaction
nition and acquaintance) varies
they concluded,

with the

level.

(after basic recog­
At

the exchange of information precedes

at the district level,

that the m o s t

the state

level,

other exchanges;

Joint programming precedes other exchanges;

and

at the county level , exchange of resources precedes other exchanges.

The f i n d i n g s of R o g e r s and of K l o n g l a n et al.

appear

to c o n t r a d i c t

Aldrich, for the formal agreements that Aldrich claims d rive the d e v e l ­
o p m e n t of i n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s

s h o w up in Rogers' and

Konglan's data as r e l a t i v e l y rare final products after a developmental
sequence of

several

steps.

The disparity

almost

certainly

stems

from

47
the d i f f e r e n c e

in o r g a n i z a t i o n s

studied.

The r a i s o n d'etre of the

r e l a t i v e l y n e w m a n p o w e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s A l d r i c h s t u d i e d r e q u i r e d the
development

of relations

with

the

local

employment

service,

mandates of these various organizations overlapped (Aldrich,
237-238).

and

the

1976b, pp.

The government and community organizations studied by Rogers

(1974, p. 63) w e r e m o s t l y w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e i r tasks w e r e no t d e ­
f i ned in ways that d e m a n d e d r e l a t i o n s w i t h the oth ers, and th ere was
r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e o v e r l a p in their d e f i n e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .
health-related organizations
included

more

recently

studied by K l on gl an et al. (1976,

formed

organizations and much more

The

p. 678)

overlap

in

defined responsibilities, but those r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s did no t r e q u i r e
relations with the others.
model can be assumed

The findings are complementary:

to apply

to dyadic interaction

Aldrich's

in an environment

w h e r e there is a l r e a d y l a r g e n u m b e r of f o r m a l i z e d dyads, Rogers' and
Klonglan's in an environment where there is not.

Rogers' r e s u l t s

s u p p o r t a h o m e o s t a t i c interpretation —

tional developments tend toward an invariant sequence.

dyadic rela­
A synthesis of

Aldrich's and Benson's findings invites an adaptive systems interpreta­
tion: political considerations (themselves
variables

in

the

rangements w i l l

larger

condition whether or not working

occur and what their nature w i l l be.

Kl o n g l a n et al. also

the

relative

level)

of

the type of exchange that is most crucial

dyadic relations.
adaptive

What would

systems model

would

have

to be added

ar­

The findings

support an adaptive systems model:

ment (as determined by
tions

system)

p r e s u m a b l y c o n d i t i o n e d by

of

the environ­

an organization

condi­

to the development of
to d e v e l o p a complete

be a description of

the mechanisms

that

48
per mit a d y a d i c r e l a t i o n s h i p to adapt to e n v i r o n m e n t a l c h ang es ; and
such a model w o u ld require longitudinal data to test.

E.

The Conditioning of Dyadic Relationships
by Network Characteristics

The two basic categories of effects that a network of relationships can
have on particular relationships within the network are the determina­
tion of (1) which relationships w i l l occur,
particular

relationships

will

be.

and (2) what the content of

Research releva nt

to this

section,

then, m u s t e x p l o r e what c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an e x i s t i n g set of r e l a ­
tionships

affect

the

p r o b a b i l i t y of a n o n e x i s t e n t

tie c o m i n g

into

existence, or an existing tie going out of existence, or the adding or
subtracting of relational content in an existing relationship, and what
those various effects are.

Three particular case studies illustrate different facets of the impact
of local networks on organizational relationships.
Paul

(1963) d e s c r i b e

studied.

Levine,

White,

and

an o r g a n i z a t i o n established in a community they

A l t h o u g h the o r g a n i z a t i o n b e g a n w i t h a l l

the i n t e r n a l re­

sources one w ou l d expect to be needed, no mechanism for relating it to
other organizations in the community were provided and the organization
did not seek out such ties.

Its effectiveness dropped, and

the organ­

ization itself e v e n t u a l l y withered.

The case outlined in the previous paragraph contrasts sharply with the
b e h a v i o r and fate of the T e n n e s s e e V a l l e y A u t h o r i t y ,
Selznick in his study of that organization (1949).

d o c u m e n t e d by

To achieve its ends

49
the T V A was impelled
The nature of those

to seek links with existing

local

links sub stantially determined

organizations.

the details of T V A

s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y to farme rs , w h i l e r e m o v i n g m u c h of th e m o s t p o t e n t
resistance to T V A at the local

level.

Selznick circumspectly decries

the c h a n g e in s e r v i c e fo cus e n f o r c e d by the l o c a l

o r g a n i z a t i o n s --

testimony to the difficulty of bypassing an existing

local

network in

d e l i v e r i n g s e r v i c e s , and to the fact that o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s , not
their individual clients,

are the predominant environmental factor for

organizations.

Finally,

Maniha and Perrow (1965) reported the case of an organization

that was formed against the wishes of many powerful
ganizations in a community.

social

service or­

Despite the best efforts of most concerned

officials to keep the new organization out of any meaningful activity,
a series of coincidences caused it to become thoroughly imbedded in the
local network during

its second year of existence.

Maniha and Perrow

c o n c l u d e d that the i m b e d d i n g o f f e r e d a g o o d p r o g n o s i s for c o n t i n u e d
survival.

Research on interorganizational

networks among social service agencies

has emphasized that exchange is essential
of interaction.

In one

to understanding the patterns

of the earliest such research projects,

Levine

and White studied 22 health-related organizations and their interrela­
tions in one New England city of 200,000,

and 55 similar organizations

in a n o t h e r a r e a c i t y of a b o u t the same size.

T h ei r work, c a r r i e d out

in the late 1950's,

later (Levine and White,

was published a few years

1961; L e v i n e , Wh ite , and P aul, 1963).

T h e y l ai d the g r o u n d w o r k

for

50
emphasis on exchange in interorganizational networks, identifying three
dimensions

to e x c h a n g e :

r e s o u r c e s ( like c l i e n t s and staff),

organ­

izational objectives, and domain consensus (agreement over location and
content of services

to be offered).

B e n s o n and his a s s o c i a t e s s t u d i e d the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g four
s p e c i f i c g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c i e s in nine M i s s o u r i c o u n t i e s in 1969.

In

the ir r e p o r t and a n a l y s i s of t h eir w o r k (Benson et al.,1973; Ben so n,
1975)

they described

mies,

with resources

given turf —

interorganizational

networks as

political

and a u t h o r i t y (the r e c o g n i z e d

econo­

r i g h t to w o r k a

another name for domain consensus) as the "coins" in

the

economy.

Aldrich (1976a), reporting on the networks formed among manpower organ­
izations in several New York cities, emphasized the central role of ac­
tual

resources

In i n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l exchange networks; such dimen­

sions as domain consensus,
tual

resource exchange

he concluded,

structure

formal authority to be a crucial
its

importance

organizations,

stemming

partly

are deriva ti ve

established (p.

423).

from the ac­
He

also

found

resource among service organizations,
from the fact

that

for social

service

"...their m a r k e t ... is not c l e a r l y d e f i n e d and

their

p r o d u c t is d i f f i c u l t f o r c o n s u m e r s to e v a l u a t e " (p. 422).

He did not

add that a l m o s t the o n l y b u y e r s are o t he r o r g a n i z a t i o n s ,

s i nce

in­

dividuals are seldom empowered to negotiate their own social services.

Cook (1977) explored expected results of unequal power distributions in
networks.

She i d e n t i f i e d

four c o u r s e s of a c t i o n o p e n to an e n t i t y

51
faced with dependence on one or more other entities for resources:

(1)

w i t h d r a w a l , (2) e x t e n s i o n of its n e t w o r k to i n c l u d e ne w e n t i t i e s , (3)
increasing the v a lue of the resources
(4) forming

It could offer in exchange,

coalitions with other entities.

She predicted

and

that organ­

i z a t i o n s w i t h c o m p l e m e n t a r y r e s o u r c e s w o u l d be l i k e l y to e s t a b l i s h
exchange relations,

and that organizations with similar resources would

be more likely to form coalitions.

Laumann and Marsden (1982), distilling the resource dependence perspec­
tive,

suggested

several

consequences

interorganizational

networks

the organizations.

In p a r t i c u l a r

of

arrangements

for the formation of
they i d e n t i f i e d

of

resources

relationships
these

three

in

among
prin­

ciples as governing interorganizational interaction (pp 331334):
1.

resource inequality -- the resources
not uniformly a v a i l a b l e to all.

2.

r e c i p r o c i t y of r e s o u r c e t r a n s f e r —
to a v o i d d e p e n d e n c e ,
organizations attempt to enter into mutual exchanges of sim­
i l a r r e s o u r c e s ( l i k e e x c h a n g e s of i n f o r m a t i o n , or c l i e n t
r e f e r r a l s ) or b a l a n c e d a s y m m e t r i c e x c h a n g e s of d i f f e r e n t
r e s o u r c e s ( l i k e i n f o r m a t i o n e x c h a n g e d for o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
support).

3.

redundancy —
to protect important relationships that provide
needed resources, organizations build mu l t i p l e links, such as
a d d i n g an e x c h a n g e of d i r e c t o r s to their o r d i n a r y r e s o u r c e
exchange.

On the basis of

their reasoning and earlier research findings,

and Marsden predicted the foll owi ng (pp.

1.

organizations

need

are

Laumann

334-336):

mutual exchange (exchange involving similar resources) w i l l
be m o s t c o m m o n w h e r e there is the l e a s t c o n c e n t r a t i o n of
resources;

52
2.

balanced asymmetric exchange (exchange of one resource for a
different one) w i l l be most common where there is the least
concentration of resources.

3.

m u l t i p l e x i t y in relations w i l l be most common where there is
the least concentration of resources.

Laumann and

Marsden's

c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

homeostatic with respect

to the behavior they identify.

dyads

is

Organizations

a i m to a c h i e v e c e r t a i n s t a t e s ( a d e q u a c y of r e s o u r c e s , l a c k of d e p e n ­
dence,

redundancy),

the e n v i r o n m e n t

and the dyads

( de g r e e

conditions outcomes,
ficiency —

of

they form reflect

resource

these aims.

concentration

While

in the network)

the e n v i r o n m e n t is b a s i c a l l y a m a t t e r of s u f ­

given sufficiently diffuse resource concentration, a char­

acteristic pattern deve lop s in dyadic interactions.

In the presence of relative

resource concentration,

expect to find interorganizational

we would

relations o v e r w h elm in gly dominated

by those a g e n c i e s w i t h the m o s t resources.
would have much to trade,

however,

S i n c e few o r g a n i z a t i o n s

most would have to compete for the resources

a v a i l a b l e from the well-endowed, and hence would h ave little incentive
to d evelop relations with each other.
with well-endowed

To the extent that relationships

o r g a n i z a t i o n s are developed, however, they should

provide resources for further exchange with other organizations.

A resource dependence perspective,

then, as interpreted by Laumann and

Marsden, leads us to expect that:

1.

formation of relationships among organizations with few re­
sources depends on formation of relationships between those
organizations with few resources and those with many;

53
2.

networks with less resource concentration generate more rela­
tionships ;

3.

networks with less resource concentration generate more multiplexity in relationships.

F.

The Effect of the Local Environment on the
Local Social Service Delivery Network

The term "local

environment",

in its most general

sense,

is used here

to r e f e r to e v e r y a s p e c t of the m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a in w h i c h a l o c a l
social

services network exists.

With regard

to direct impact on that

ne t w o r k , h o w e v e r , the l o c a l e n v i r o n m e n t c o n s i s t s of o t h e r o r g a n i z a ­
tions.

Variables of other

sorts,

like basic changes in the character

of the local population (the l e v e l of poverty, the l e v e l of education,
the l e v e l of p h y s i c a l and m e n t a l he a l t h ) af f e c t the n e t w o r k of s e r ­
vices; but b e c a u s e p a y m e n t of s o c i a l s e r v i c e s is r o u t i n e l y b r o k e r e d
t h r o u g h o r g a n i z a t i o n s r a t h e r than m a n a g e d th r o u g h a v o u c h e r system,
such changes would still
ganizational

interaction.

environment w i l l

have

their effects mediated

For purposes of this study,

through interor­
then, the local

be understood primarily to be those organizations

the metropolitan area that are not in the social services network,

in
and

the network(s) formed among them and with social service agencies.

No research has specifically

related

the nature of a social

network to the larger network of organizations around
studies have

it;

examined features of cities' organizational

services

but

structures as

they af fe c t o u t c o m e s that w o u l d bear on the a c t i v i t y of the
s e r v i c e s network.

several

social

Some of these st u d i e s s uggest u s a b l e c o n j e c t u r e s

54
about the a r t i c u l a t i o n of s o c i a l s e r v i c e s n e t w o r k s w i t h their l o c a l
organizational environments.

A i k e n (1969,

1970) and A i k e n a n d A l f o r d (1970a,

series of a r t i c l e s on t h ei r r e s e a r c h on f e d e r a l
States cities.

In

1970b)

published

a

p r o g r a m s in U n i t e d

their report on urban renewal (1970a)

they reported

the results of testing several standard hypotheses about the variables
that af f e c t e v e n t s

in cities.

On the basis of t h e i r f i n di ng s, th ey

rejected these hypotheses and suggested an alternative
interorganizational

in terms of the

n e t w o r k w i t h i n the cities (pp. 661-663):

large cities were more
they had more effective

lik el y to participate in urban
networks:

(I) more

stable

renewal

older,
because

organizational

nets

and a concomitant higher state of knowledge about the community system
among organizational

actors;

and (2) a larger and more diverse set of

special-purpose organizations that served as multi pl e centers of power.
They c o n c l u d e d that m u l t i p l e c e n t e r s of po w e r are i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e
they m a k e it m o r e l i k e l y that a c o a l i t i o n of r e s o u r c e s a d e q u a t e to a
given political

task can be formed —

tion that a b s o l u t e
determinant

size, not r e l a t i v e

of a c t i o n

Involvement in federal

in

such

p ow e r share,

systems.

Their a n a l y s i s

1970b,

pp.

863-4).

of d a t a on

1970,

the same

The same pattern of

present in their research on Model

Poverty programs (Aiken,

is the c r u c i a l

programs for public housing supported

conclusions (Aiken and Alford,
results was also

a conclusion based on the assump­

Cities and War on

p. 513).

A little earlier Clark (1968) had studied decisions
u r b a n r e n e w a l p r o g r a m s in 51 U. S. cities.

to participate

He c o n c l u d e d

in

(pp. 587-8)

55
that "fragile" issues,
the community's

those without a significant prior

structure,

are more easily vetoed

imbedding

in

in a decentralized

p o wer s t r u c t u r e b e c a u s e there a r e m o r e c e n t e r s of power.

However,

w h e n once a p r o g r a m h a s b e c o m e imbed ded , he su g g e s t e d , it tends to be
harder to uproot in a decentralized power structure because several

of

th ose same m u l t i p l e c e n t e r s of p o w e r n o w h a v e a v e s t e d i n t e r e s t in
m a i n t a i n i n g the n e w program.

His f i n d i n g s ar e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h A i k e n

and A l f o r d ' s w i t h r e s p e c t to p a r t i c i p a t i o n in u r b a n r e n e w a l (p. 587);
but he p o i n t e d o ut (pp. 58 7-88) that e a r l i e r r e s e a r c h e r s had g o t t e n
different results, and concluded that urban renewal programs had during
the meantime become more im b e d d e d -Aiken and Alford's)

e x p l a i n i n g his o w n (and

thereby

results.

Clark's d a t a s h o w e d (1968, p. 587)

that the z e r o - o r d e r r e l a t i o n s h i p

b e t w e e n c o m m u n i t y p o v e r t y l e v e l a n d u r b a n r e n e w a l e x p e n d i t u r e s w as
r e l a tiv ely low,
—

but

that

the path coefficient was considerably higher

an i n d i c a t i o n that p r i m a f a c i e "need" is not a s t r o n g p r e d i c t o r of

program participation unless
Hage's data showed
erty and

l ev e l

the same

other

c o n d i t i o n s are met.

lo w correlations between measures

of program participation in three of

they s t u d i e d (Aiken,

A i k e n and

1970, p. 513).

1960's on 130 A m e r i c a n cities,

the four

of

pov­

programs

T u r k (1970), u s i n g d a t a f r o m the

f o u n d that m e a s u r e s of the e x t e n t of

poverty in a city predicted the amount of federal funding obtained for
poverty programs

in those cities

but not in those less organized.

that were fairly strongly organized,
He concluded (pp.

14-16)

that

level

of involv eme nt in the poverty programs was a m u l t i p l i c a t i v e function of
need (poverty) and capacity (interorganizational integration).

Writing

56
later about a wider range of city government functions and activities,
T u r k (1977,

p. 186) g e n e r a l i z e d his c o n c l u s i o n to the f u l l r a n g e of

needs a city might address.

These studies a l l

suggest

that

the effectiveness

of a city in m o b i l ­

izing resources to meet individual human needs depends primarily on the
presence of a well -i nte gra te d interorganizational network with m u l t i p i e
c e n t e r s of power.
better-integrated

It s e e m s r e a s o n a b l e to c o n c l u d e ,

the o v e r a l l network in a metropolitan area,

resources its social services network wil l have.
to this question:

then,

what

conditions

that

the

the more

That conclusion leads

in metropolitan areas

encourage

the

development and maintenance of well-integrated networks with m u l t i p l e
c e n t e r s of pow e r ?

Three

t y p e s of v a r i a b l e s h a v e

those that a f f e c t the s t a b i l i t y of the netw or k,

been identified:

t hose that

provide

resources to build a l ter nat iv e loci of power in the Interorganizational
ne t w o r k , and tho se that a f f e c t the m a n n e r in w h i c h the d y a d i c m i c r o strostructure network w i l l li k e l y be built up.

A i k e n and A l f o r d (1970a, pp. 654, 657-8, 662) i d e n t i f i e d I n - m i g r a t i o n
as a principal

factor

i z a t i o n a l netw ork .

that

can reduce the stability of an interorgan­

R a p i d p o p u l a t i o n g r o w t h in a m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a

provides a basis for new organizations in any case.
a function of in-migration,

When the growth is

the new population brings with

It

ties

to

other organizations and demands for particular organizational arrange­
ments.

The

result

organizations.

is c h a n g e s

Unfortunately,

in

the p a t t e r n of c o n n e c t i o n s

they did not explore

a mong

the opportunities

for n e w c e n t e r s of p o w e r that g r o w t h in the n u m b e r of o r g a n i z a t i o n s

57
would provide, nor how the effects of these opportunities interact with
the instability in the o v e r a l l network.

Clark (1968,

pp.

found between

588-9) was startled by the very large

the percentage of Catholic population in a city and its

u r b a n r e n e w a l and g e n e r a l b u d g e t exp end i t u r e s .
plausible

explanation,

Catholics

to be f a v o r a b l y disposed

he

was

tivities and more extensive
ev er,

reported a profile

populations:

by attitude

toward

studies

increased

of the c o m m u n i t i e s w i t h

Northeastern

this is exactly

impressed

In his s e a r c h for a

U.

S.,

fairly

high

showing

governmental

welfare state activities.

slightly more industrialized,

He

also,

ac­
ho w­

largest

Catholic

population

d en sit y,

somewhat less educated populations.

But

the type of city with the largest v ari ety of ethnicity

and the largest proportion of foreign-born population,
diversity is a principal
A l f o r d (1970a,

relationship he

p. 660;

and this ethnic

component of the heterogeneity that Aiken and
1970b,

p. 859) cite as p r e d i c t i v e of g r e a t e r

in volvement in urban renewal and public housing projects.

A i k e n and

Alford

economic power

as

(1970a,

pp.

660-1)

also

test ed

a predictor of involvement

the d i s p e r s i o n

in urban renewal.

of

They

fo und that the n u m b e r of m a n u f a c t u r i n g e s t a b l i s h m e n t s of size 100 or
more and the number of

independent banks with assets of fifty m i l l i o n

dollars or more were each significantly correlated with in v o l v e m e n t in
u r b a n r e new al.

The p e r c e n t of p l a n t w o r k e r s u n i o n i z e d a l s o s h o w e d

significant relationship with some of their measures.

58
H a w l e y (1963) r e p o r t e d that the s m a l l e r the p r o p o r t i o n of m a n a g e r s ,
proprietors,

and officials

in a city's population,

was to h a v e p a r t i c i p a t e d in u r ba n renewal.

the more

like ly it

He I n t e r p r e t e d

the " M P O

r a t i o 11, as he n a m e d it, as a m e a s u r e of c o n c e n t r a t i o n of p o w e r in a
city,

a r g u i n g (p.

number

of

466) that

such positions

the n u m b e r of such p e r s o n s

needed.

reflect

His findings supported his

tion (p. 465) that a c o n c e n t r a t i o n of power is n e e d e d

the

supposi­

to foc us

the

resources required to initiate programs like urban renewal.

Aiken (1970,

pp. 502-505),

like Hawley,

reported that

the M P O

ratio

in

cities was I n v ers ely re lated to in volvement in urban renewal (and other
federal welfare) programs.

He t e s t e d Hawley's s u p p o s i t i o n ,

however,

that the MPO ratio is indicative of greater concentration of power,
c o r r e l a t i n g it w i t h his i n d e x of d i f f u s i o n of p o l i t i c a l power.

by
The

correlation was negative, and Aiken argued that the M PO ratio therefore
measures power concentration d i r e c t l y , rather than i nv e r s e l y as Hawley
had reasoned.

Aiken's f i n d i n g s s u g g e s t that the M P O ra tio is p e r h a p s b e t t e r i n t e r ­
p r e t e d as a d e m o g r a p h i c

than a s t r u c t u r a l

variable,

i n d i c a t i v e of

higher average socioeconomic status among city inhabitants.

Aiken and

A l f o r d (1970a, p. 658; 1970b, p.859) s h o w e d that two o t h e r m e a s u r e s of
SES —

median

family

income

and percent of adult population

graduated high school — - were
housing and urban renewal
ratio.

Although

these

related

to i n v o l v e m e n t

to p a r t i c i p a t i o n in f e d e r a l

programs in exactly the same way as the MPO

results
in

related

that had

suggest

the federal

that

higher

SES

programs studied,

is

negatively

Clark (1968)

59
provides evidence to the contrary.

He also found the negative correla­

tion b e t w e e n a m e a s u r e of SES ( p r o p o r t i o n of h i g h l y e d u c a t e d p o p u l a ­
tion) and urban renewal
his study,

expenditures;

but he used a path analysis

and the path coefficient between those two variables was as

strongly positive as the zero-order coefficient was negative (p.

A higher l e v e l
correspond

for

to a

of average socioeconomic
lower

level

of need,

status in a city w o u l d surely

and the zero-order correlations

fou nd a re t h e r e f o r e h a r d l y s u r p r i s i n g ;
argue that higher SES w i l l
tion and m o r e c e n t e r s

but there is a l s o

r e a s o n to

lead to better lnterorganizational

of power.

587).

integra­

G r a n o v e t t e r (1973) i n t r o d u c e d

c on c e p t of the " w e a k tie" in ne tworks.

the

He a r g u e d that r e l a t i o n s h i p s

that are less frequent, intensive, and intimate provide the connections
that link disparate primary groups
into a broader social
personal

contacts

that connectedness

network is dependent on such ties.

leading

tention empirically;

together; consequently,

integration
His study of

to jobs in Boston (1974) supported

Fararo (1981) demonstrated

in a net

the

logical

his

con­

necessity

is greater when inbreeding bias (the

ten­

d e n c y for e n t i t i e s to be c o n n e c t e d to o t h e r s in the same c a t e g o r y as
t h e m s e l v e s ) is less.

But it is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of h i g h e r SES p e r s o n s

that they m a i n t a i n a g r e a t e r
1982).

It is reasonable

p r o p o r t i o n of w e a k ties ( G r a n o v e t t e r ,

to expect,

then,

that

the interpersonal

net­

work structure of a city w i l l be better connected the higher the a ve r­
age SES.

Since organizational

leaders tend to be higher SES persons in

g e n e r a l , this t e n d e n c y s h o u l d be e v e n s t r o n g e r in the i n t e r p e r s o n a l
connections that

link organizations.

60
In summary, p r i o r r e s e a r c h l e a d s to the e x p e c t a t i o n that c i t i e s w i t h
r e l a tiv ely high average socioeconomic status, r e l a t i v e l y l o w in-migration,

heterogeneity in ethnic stock,

power w i l l

be better integrated

the metropolitan area w i l l

and m u l t i p l e centers

of economic

in the sense that the organizations in

have

greater

density of

interaction.

This

b e t t e r o v e r a l l i n t e g r a t i o n , s i n c e it has b e e n s h ow n to be r e l a t e d to
higher l ev e l s

of participation in federal government

expected to lead to higher l e v e l s of resources,

programs,

can be

from more sources,

for

the local social services network.

G.

The Effect of the Nonlocal Environ»ent on the
Local Social Service Delivery Network

Research demonstrating the effect of varied U. S. national environments
on l o c a l m e t r o p o l i t a n e n v i r o n m e n t s is sparse, a r e s u l t of the s m a l l
number of cases and the short longevity of researchers compared to that
of the cases being

studied.

Instead

the relevant

literature

consists

m o s t l y of a b s t r a c t a s s e r t i o n s about the na t u r e of e n v i r o n m e n t s g e n ­
erally, illustrated by specific features of national (or international)
environments.

Aldrich (1972) listed se ven dimensions to organizational environments,
of w h i c h two i n v o l v e n o n l o c a l i n f l u e n c e s :

the c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y of

(quantity of

which

resources

in)

the

o r g a n i z a t i o n s in the U n i t e d
organizations;

and

i n a l l y defined

the

environment,

for

social

service

St ate s c l e a r l y is a f f e c t e d by n a t i o n a l

turbulence of the environment,

by E m e r y and Tr i s t (1965),

results

which,

as orig­

f r o m the g l o b a l

61
Interlock of i n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
" f i e l d " (1967) w r i t large).

ties (Warren's I n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

The s e two d i m e n s i o n s e n c o m p a s s the s u b ­

stance of other literature relevant

Two e m p i r i c a l
analysis.

to this topic.

findings are s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l e v a n t

to this l e v e l of

T u r k (1970) s h o w e d that the l e v e l of c o n n e c t e d n e s s

in a

metropolitan area is strongly related to the number of external connec­
tions —

as measured by

ters In the area.

the number of national

A i k e n (1970,

organization headquar­

p. 498) ad ded his own f i n d i n g s

to a

long list of prior research that shows that the proportion of absentee
ownership In a local economy is inversely related to the centralization
of the local political decision-making process.

T h e s e f i n d i n g s c a n be I n t e r p r e t e d
environment

h ave

the effect

of

to m e a n that ties to the e x t e r n a l

providing

variety (turbulence)

local environment, encouraging adaptive behavior.

in

the

Certainly additional

ties to the external environment would Increase the number of indepen­
dent s o u r c e s of p o w e r and re s o u r c e s ,

diminishing tendencies

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of p o w e r in the l o c a l system.

E v a n (1965) c o n t e n d e d

that as the Input of resources is more concentrated,
In a more turbulent environment,

to war d

authority Is too.

then, we could expect decentralization

in local systems.

Clark

(1965),

interpreting

the relations among institutions

of higher

e d u c a t i o n and the g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c i e s that a ff e c t t h e m in the U n i t e d
States,

noted

that

the r e s u l t i n g

Interorganizational network did not

display the tight control mechanisms of a standard bureaucracy;

instead

62
d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s e s a n d s u p e r v i s o r y f u n c t i o n s ar e r e l a t i v e l y
d e c e n t r a l i z e d and n o t a u t h o r i t a r i a n .
Poucke's

(1980) between

His d i s t i n c t i o n r e s e m b l e s v a n

interest and power networks:

interest

networks

generate informal control mechanisms based on the interests of the par­
ties; p o w er n e t w o r k s (he u s e d o r g a n i z a t i o n s as the p r o t o t y p e ) h a v e a
formal central control mechanism that orients the parties regardless of
[in addition to?]
organizational

their interests.

networks

To the extent that national

inter­

operate as interest networks, greater numbers

of ties to them in a local area should bring that local network to look
more nearly like the national one.

Roy (1983),

analyzing

the

interlocks

in the directorates

of

12 United

States industries between 1886 and 1905, uncovered a reve al ing pattern.
The years studied are significant because,

as Roy pointed out (p.

248),

these two d e c a d e s s p a n the time w h e n the U. S. e c o n o m y s h i f t e d f r o m a
p r i m a r i l y n o n - c o r p o r a t e to a p r i m a r i l y c o r p o r a t e s t r u c t u r e .
analysis

shows g rap hi c a l l y how the

interlocking

of

directorates

Roy's
over

this twenty year period began with domination by three core industries
and gradually spread out to i n v o l v e interlocks between many industries
not in that core.

He cites Mizruchi's (1982) study of corporate inter­

l o cks o v e r the f o l l o w i n g 70 y e a r s as e v i d e n c e
ization, t h o u g h g r a d u a l , h a s b e e n conti nui ng .

that

the d e c e n t r a l ­

These studies suggest

that the phenomenon C l ar k d e s cr ibe d in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n has o c c u r r e d
within the industrial sector of the economy as well.

E m e r y and T r ist (1965) a r e g e n e r a l l y cite d as the o r i g i n a t o r s of the
concept of a turbulent environment.

They used as their example a firm

63
In Britain that,

continuing

in what had been a highly

successful

man­

ner, was t o t a l l y u n d o n e by c i r c u m s t a n c e s it c o u l d n o t h a v e fo reseen.
They concluded

that

the extent of interconnection

among

organizations

in the m o d e r n w o r l d ha s m a d e it i m p o s s i b l e to f o r e c a s t

the e f f e c t s

which ripple through those interconnections.

Their conclusions ma y
considered.

stem in part from the size of organization they

Wile nsk y (1967),

using much larger organizations

as

exam­

p l e s ( p r i m a r i l y the U n i t e d S t a t e s g o v e r n m e n t , and o c c a s i o n a l l y some
other governments),

was much more

optimistic

about

the

capability

of

organizations to obtain the information they need to operate ef fective­
ly in their environments.

In any case,

an organization's information-gathering

regardless of
apparatus,

the adequacy of

it seems

reasonable

to assume that in a turbulent environment organizations with more con­
tact points in the network of organizations around them w i l l

be better

able to foresee coming events and better able to fashion effective res­
pon se s to them.
ments,

F r o m this we can c o n j e c t u r e that t u r b u l e n t e n v i r o n ­

g e n e r a t e d by the i n t e r l o c k i n g of o r g a n i z a t i o n s

in the f irst

place, w i l l induce pressures for even more Interconnection.

Haire (1959) presaged

later arguments about the effect of the environ­

m e n t on o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
analogy,

he c o n t e n d e d

l a b o r specialization.

Pursuing an organlsmic

that o r g a n i z a t i o n s w o u l d b u i l d up p e r s o n n e l

positions in places where

they are stressed.

In a turbulent environ­

ment, pressures from the environment are particularly severe, and would
be reflected in the development of many externally-oriented positions.
The existence of many such positions in many local organizations would

64
in and of i t s e l f c o n t r i b u t e

to the d e v e l o p m e n t of

because the personnel w o u l d al rea dy be present
tionships.

We

should

therefore

works in m e tro politan areas

expect

local

networks,

to carry on

the rela­

the best connected

local

net­

that have the most contact with the exter­

nal environment.

In summary,

there

is

evidence

to suggest that the interorganizational

s t r u c t u r e of the e n t i r e U n i t e d St ate s has g r o w n m o r e d i f f u s e in its
decision-making patterns.

There

is even stronger evidence

to suggest

that the nature of the national system tends to induce a similar nature
in l o c a l systems.

T h e r e is g o o d r e a s o n to expect, then, t h a t in the

U n i t e d S ta t e s m o r e ties to the n a t i o n a l s ys t e m w i l l r e s u l t in a l ess
centralized decision-making

s t r u c t u r e at the l o c a l

level.

In the

United States this means that more ties to the external environment re­
sult in less centralized decision-making structures at the local level.

CHAPTER 3
DATA, ASSUMPTIONS, HYPOTHESES, AND METHODS OF ANALYSIS

A. The Data Available fraa the Study

The data analyzed In this dissertation were gathered
federal

government

request

In response

to a

for research on the coordination of mental

h e a l t h s e r v i c e s to the a g i n g ( N I M H g r a n t

if

31898-02).

The d e s i g n of

the study i n v o l v e d the selection of 12 cities, 6 each from Michigan and
Ohio, w i t h p o p u l a t i o n s in the ran g e of 100,000 to 500,000.

Project

staff visited each of the cities to gather information, meet with local
pe r s o n s at the c e n t e r of
co operation.

Telephone

the

social

services

ne t w o r k ,

and

request

d i r e c t o r i e s , printed Information from United

W a y offices , and i n t e r v i e w s w it h k n o w l e d g e a b l e p e r s o n s w e r e u s e d to
compile a list of the social service agencies in each city.

F r o m the l i s t of a g e n c i e s
d e f i n e d for I n t e r v i e w .

I d e n t i f i e d In e a c h c i t y a p o p u l a t i o n

was

In g e n e r a l , a g e n c i e s w e r e i n c l u d e d that had

five or more permanent paid staff positions, an independent board, and
direct provision of social

services

to clients.

Physical

he alt h was

not I n c l u d e d In the w o r k i n g d e f i n i t i o n o f " s o c i a l s e r v i c e s " , so h o s ­
p i t a l s and o t h e r a g e n c i e s c o n c e r n e d o n l y w i t h p h y s i c a l h e a l t h w e re
excluded.

State facilities

to d i a l

in-patient

or

located in a city,

services

that h a d

gained

provided cus­

o n l y o n a s t a t e w i d e b a s is

mental hospitals), were also excluded.
Included

but that

A handful

(prisons,

of p r o g r a m s

c o m m u n i t y r e c o g n i t i o n in their own

were
rig ht

d e s p i t e p l a c e m e n t w i t h i n l a r g e r i n s t i t u t i o n s ( l i k e a u n i v e r s i t y or
65

66
hospital).
a gr e e d

to

Of

527

take

agencies

part

In

in the identified

the

study*

d e c l i n i n g to take part s h o w e d

An

populations,

examination

of

479

the

(90.9%)

agencies

that there was no c o n s i s t e n t

pattern

a m o n g the c i t i e s w i t h r e s p e c t to the p a r t i c u l a r o r g a n i z a t i o n s or the
types of o r g a n i z a t i o n s
selection process,

th at did de c l i n e .

Specific

details

of

the

lists of organizations, and other information r e la­

t ive to the d a t a - g a t h e r i n g p r o c e s s can be found in the f i n a l
prepared for this project (Marcus and Sheldon,

report

1982).

Du ri n g i n t e r v i e w s an e x p a n d e d l i s t of o r g a n i z a t i o n s was used to a s k
agency directors about
city.

t h e i r agencies' I n t e r c o n n e c t i o n s w i t h i n the

The expanded list included a l l agencies in the original

popula­

tion targeted for interview, certain general categories of public agen­
cies (courts, hospitals,

schools), and certain specific u mb r e l l a organ­

i z a t i o n s p r o v i d i n g no d i r e c t s e r v i c e s but c o o r d i n a t i n g or p r o v i d i n g
money to others (United Way,

Ment al

Health Boards).

dissertation is limited to actual organizations,

Analysis

in

this

excluding the general

categories but Including the um b r e l l a organizations not interviewed.

The r e s e a r c h team a s s e m b l e d three s u r v e y i n s t r u m e n t s to g a t h e r data
from the i n t e r v i e w e d o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and c o m p i l e d a l a r g e a m o u n t of
a r c h i v a l d a t a on the c o u n t i e s c o n t a i n i n g the t w e l v e c i t i e s studied.
The county-level data (a list of these variables is give n in Appendix
B) included updated v a l u e s of the variables used by Turk (1970,
1973b,

1977) in his e a r l i e r s t u d y of 130 A m e r i c a n cities.

survey instruments were completed,
Opinion Research,

was hired

Once

a private organization,

to conduct

interviews and

prepare

1973a,
the

Market
the

raw

67
data base.

Interviews were carried out In the

s umme r

and early fall of

1979.

The

first

instrument was a questionnaire administered

by interviewers

from M O R during interviews with agency heads or their designates.

The

second i n s t r u m e n t w a s l e f t b e h i n d w i t h the p e r s o n i n t e r v i e w e d to be
fil led out and returned at his/her convenience

soon after.

The

third

Instrument was left to be f i l l e d out by that person in the organization
most k n o w l e d g e a b l e
agency.
records,

about

the

personnel

and b u d g e t

aspects

of

the

Budget and personnel Information can be assumed to be based on
but a n s w e r s to o t h e r q u e s t i o n s r e p r e s e n t the p e r c e p t i o n s

agency heads.

Items in the Interview instrument are almost uniformly

p re s e n t In the d a t a base,
instruments

left

of

bu t

behind were

had not r e s p o n d e d w e r e u s e d

the o r i g i n a l

77%.

r e t u r n rates

Telephone c a l l s

on the

to agencies which

to o b t a i n c e r t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n ,

return rates to 86% at worst —

two

and 93.5% in one case —

raising

for the items

pursued.

The first,
relevant

interview,

to analyses

i n s t r u m e n t contained the following Information
in

this

dissertation.

The entire

instrument

is

contained in Appendix A-i.

1.

2.

A 3-point scale of Increase or decrease over past five years
in:
a.
number
b.
number
c.
amount
d.
number
e.
number
Proportions

of
of
of
of
of
of

clients served;
services/programs offered;
funding (after controlling for inflation);
sources of funds;
service locations.
clients referred in and referred
out.

68
3.

A 2-point scale of addition, in the past three years, of:
a.
b.
c.
d.

4.

new programs mandated by outside organizations;
new programs not mandated;
client groups mandated by outside organizations;
client groups not mandated.

21 questions about relations with other agencies:
a.

5 questions about similarity to own agency:
(1)
similar services provided,
(2) similar clients served,
(3) similar sources of funds,
(4) compete for resources,
(5) compete for clients;

b.

4 attributions about other agencies:
(6)
have influence over own agency,
(7)
good opinion is important to own agency,
(8)
h ave influence over human services decisions in the
community,
(9)
have prestige in the community;

c.

12 questions about interaction with other agencies:
(10) other agency provides cooperation and support,
(11) conflict with other agency in past few years,
(12) other agency refers clients,
(13) own agency refers clients to other agency,
(14) exchange opinions, Information and ideas with other
agency,
(15) own agency on same community committees and p lan ­
ning task forces as other agency,
(16) r e l y o n o t h e r a g e n c y to d e l i v e r own agency's s e r ­
vices ,
(17) have cooperative informal relationship,
(18) have formal relationship: run program(s) for other
agency,
(19) h a v e f o r m a l r e l a t i o n s h i p : o t h e r a g e n c y r u n s p r o ­
grams for own agency,
(20) have formal relationship: operate joint program,
(21) have formal relationship: other kind.

In addition, respondents were asked to name a contact person
for formal programs, and these Individuals were asked inde­
pendently to list agencies involved.
U l t i m a t e l y these re­
s u l t s and t h o s e for q u e s t i o n s 18 t h r o u g h 20 were c o m b i n e d ,
and question 21 eliminated.
Analysis suggested that respon­
dents did not adequately discriminate among the first three
typ es of p r o g r a m s , a n d sho w e d that no "ot her" type w a s c o r ­
roborated by the contact person except where it had already
been listed as a different type.

69
5.

The

A m a t r i x of m o s t i m p o r t a n t s o u r c e s of i n f l u e n c e o v e r 10
d i f f e r e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n a r e a s ( l i s t of d e c i s i o n
areas on page 16, Appendix A-l; list of sources
of influence
given in Appendix A-2.

se co n d i n s t r u m e n t ,

left

behind

to be f i l l e d

out by the p e r s o n

interviewed, contained the following information relevant

to this dis­

sertation (the complete instrument is in Appendix A-3):
1.

a m a t r i x of 8 c a t e g o r i e s of staff i n v o l v e d
tional decision areas (p. 3 in Appendix A-3);

2.

a 5 - p o i n t s c a l e of us e of w r i t t e n c r i t e r i a
organizational work;

3.

a 5 - p o i n t s c a l e of us e of p e r m a n e n t staff c o m m i t t e e s for 8
organizational decision areas.

The third instrument,

in 7 o r g a n i z a ­

in 9 a r eas

of

left behind to be filled out by an administrator

knowledgeable about budget and personnel,
formation relev ant to

contained

the following

in­

this dissertation (the complete instrument is in

Appendix A-4):
1.

the number

of full-time-equivalent positions of paid staff;

2.

the number
tions;

of full-time-equivalent paid administrative posi­

3.

a c o u n t of the n u m b e r of p r o f e s s i o n a l
specialties employed by the organization;

4.

the total
d o l l a r income in the most recent complete
year prior to the interview.

and

occupational

fiscal

70
B.

1.

General Assumptions

Practical Consequences

The p r a c t i c a l a i m of the a n a l y s i s in this d i s s e r t a t i o n is to o b t a i n
results

that

could

guide

government agencies wishing

to intervene

improve

service d e l i v e r y

in one or more metropolitan

areas.

to

Because

the study on which this dissertation is based collected no data direct­
l y r e l a t e d to the q u a l i t y of s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y , we m u s t m a k e some a s ­
sumptions about
better service

the type of conditions that can be expected
delivery.

These

assumptions are not

to lead

open even

to

to in­

direct testing with the data from which this dissertation is drawn, so
their accuracy w i l l have to be shown (or disproved) in other research.

The first assumption is that service provision through the cooperation
of agencies,

whether on an informal or a formal basis,

service delivery.
services beyond

the

Such cooperation should lead
resources

of

any

single

leads

to better

to the de velopment of

organization

to develop,

and that w o u l d t h e r e f o r e no t o t h e r w i s e be a v a i l a b l e to c l i e n t s ;
should result in additional
allow small

organizations

service

it

locations because joint operations

to p r o v i d e services that can compete with

those offered by larger organizations.

The presence of cooperative programming among agencies,

then,

will

be

assumed to increase the qu ality of service delivery in both ways iden­
tified as relevant to this dissertation in Chapter lr increased numbers
of services and improved access to existing services.
tion

is

correct,

it

becomes

important

to

look

If this assump­

for

intervention

71
strategies

that encourage

such cooperative programming with

of e f f o r t o n the p a r t of an i n t e r v e n i n g agency.

a minimum

Mandating such pro­

grams may be an efficient way to meet specific demands, but it is inor­
dinately expensive in administrative terms to analyze a w h o l e network
and m a n a g e it b y m a n d a t i n g a br o a d s p e c t r u m of c o o p e r a t i v e projects.
It w o u l d t h e r e f o r e be m o r e u s e f u l to d e v e l o p g u i d e l i n e s for r o u t i n e
resource input into a system that w i l l

likely lead to more cooperative

programming, and reserve mandatory procedures for select situations.

The se con d a s s u m p t i o n is that c lient s' needs are b e s t m e t w h e n a d i f ­
ferent organization
particular

type

in

of

the social

service

service network is devoted

offered.

Warren's (1967) argument that va lu e s
resented in the social
to them.

This

assumption

[types of service]

is

a each

based

on

need to be rep­

service network in order to have resources

flow

So l o n g as a s e r v i c e is o n l y one part of e x i s t i n g o r g a n ­

izations, it is subject to i n t e r n a l

priority-setting mechanisms,

and

thus not as a v a i l a b l e to the c o m m u n i t y p r i o r i t y - s e t t i n g m e c h a n i s m s .
The existence of an organization dedicated
vice presumably provides a better
se.

likelihood of service deliv er y per

To the ex te n t that s u c h an o r g a n i z a t i o n has the r e s o u r c e s

vite cooperative

programming

with other agencies,
and

to a particular type of ser­

in other

cooperative

avai lab le to clients.
very well-endowed.
essential

the

and establish client referral

results

should be service

arrangements

Ideally,

that make

at more

mechanisms
locations

service more

readily

then, such a new organization would

be

S i n c e that Is o f t e n not the case, h o w e v e r , it is

to i d e n t i f y c o n d i t i o n s of c r e a t i o n that c a n h e l p

organization to make

to i n ­

the most use of the resources it has.

su ch an

72
The third a s s u m p t i o n is that a g e n e r a l l y h i g h l e v e l of e x c h a n g e of
information and client referrals within a local social services network
is a d v a n t a g e o u s in b o t h w a y s d e f i n e d to be of i n t e r e s t —
organizations know about
exchange client

each other,

referrals,

and the more wil l i n g

the m o r e

likely

it is

that

the m o r e

they are to
individual

c l i e n t s c a n l o c a t e the s e r v i c e they w a n t (need) and the e a s i e r it is
for them to do so, a nd th e m o r e l i k e l y it is that n e e d s not c u r r e n t l y
being addressed w i l l

be identified and programs begun

It t h e r e f o r e is i m p o r t a n t

to address

to i d e n t i f y c o n d i t i o n s that w i l l

them.

lead

to

greater l e v e l s of exchange of information and clients within a social
services network;

specifically,

it is important

to

identify

feasible

interventions that can foster those conditions.

2.

Theoretical Conjectures

The analytic distinction between homeostatic and adaptive
p l i e s a neat t y p o l o g y that does not c o r r e s p o n d
sy s t e m s (perh aps a l l
example,

to e x p e r i e n c e ;

l i v i n g syst em s) c o n t a i n e l e m e n t s of both.

the human body is c l e a r l y a homeostatic system;

being includes a psychological
t i v e (1967,

p. 5).

systems

but

im­
many
For

the human

system which Buckley maintains is adap­

If one Is g o i n g

to study h u m a n be i n g s ,

does

one

assume the system to be bounded by the homeostatic body or freed by the
adaptive psychological component?

Rel ati v e l y narrow studies s o l ve this

dilemma by concentrating on subsets of the human being that are consis­
tent.

Many philosophical difficulties in grasping the nature of entire

human beings

stem precisely

from the interplay

that results

from tre­

m e n d o u s l y c o m p l e x s y s t e m s at two l e v e l s being c o n j o i n e d in a s i n g l e
entity.

One advantage

of such an arrangement,

however,

is

that e n vi­

73
ronmental processes can provide operant conditioning to shape init ial ly
non-homeostatic

processes

part of the homeostatic

into d e p e nd ab le responses that thus become

system of the entity and Increase the range of

environmental conditions within which that homeostatic system can func­
tion effectively.

Any living

s y s t e m is b u i l t

fro m

the h o m e o s t a t i c c o m p o n e n t s

l o w e r - l e v e l s t r u c t u r e s that c o m p o s e it,

components of the l o w e r - l e v e l
complexity.

s t r u c t u r e s are,
related

Any

it can incorporate the homeostatic

structures into Itself and thus gain in
adaptive

components of such

at the p o i n t of i n c o r p o r a t i o n , m e r e

to the u s e f u l n e s s

the i r

When a higher-level system provides the

needed normal operating environment,

homeostatic

the

for it is tho s e c o m p o n e n t s

that can be c o u n t e d o n to p e r f o r m in p r e d i c t a b l e w a y s w i t h i n
normal operating environments.

of

lower-level

tag-alongs

un­

of th ose s t r u c t u r e s to the h i g h e r - l e v e l

system.

The nature of
this point.

a higher-level

entity's environment

becomes

crucial

at

To the e x t e n t that the h o m e o s t a t i c s y s t e m in the h i g h e r -

lev el entity (built from the homeostatic components of Its l o w e r - l e v e l
structures) is adequate
the adaptive

components

to cope with the exigencies of the environment,
of

the

lo wer-level

the h o m e o s t a t i c are not u s e f u l --

structures

inherited with

e it h e r to the u p p e r - l e v e l e nti ty ,

w h i c h is c o p i n g w e l l a l r e a d y , or to the l o wer l e v e l en t i t y , w h i c h is
now incorporated in an environment that is relatively stable;
t h e r e f o r e tend to w i t h e r away.
tities

in a

relatively

simple

they will

This is the p r o c e s s by w h i c h the e n ­
environment

grad ual ly

become

strictly

74
homeostatic.

E ve n before

they have,

detect adaptive behavior because

an observer would not be able

to

the environment requires nothing from

the entities in it that their homeostatic systems cannot provide.

If the environment

of

the u p p e r -l ev el

entity,

however,

makes demands

that cannot be met by the homeostatic system of that entity,
t i v e c o m p o n e n t s m a y b e c o m e usa b l e .

the adap­

If their f u n c t i o n i n g p e r m i t s an

effective response to the environment, and if they interlock dependably
with any other components of the upper-level entity, they w i l l be added
to the upper -le ve l

homeostatic system.

Since such components were not

part of the original homeostatic system, responses based on them entail
changes in the o v e r a l l

structure of the upper-level

entity,

and

it is

by this mechanism that fundamental changes in the homeostatic system of
the entity can be made.

E v e n in a v e r y c o m p l e x e n v i r o n m e n t , h o w e v e r ,
become

strictly

homeostatic.

E v e ry

time

an

entities w i l l

adjustment

in

the

tend to
homeo­

st a t i c s y s t e m of an e n t i t y is m a d e by c o n v e r t i n g a p r e v i o u s l y n o n homeostatic component,

two things happen.

The first is that

the flex­

i b i l i t y of the h o m e o s t a t i c s y s t e m is i m p r o v e d , so that f e w e r c i r c u m ­
stances will now require responses not a v a il abl e
system.
reduced.

from the homeostatic

The second is that the store of possible adaptive responses is
In the l o n g run, t h e r e f o r e , the p r o c e s s e s d e s c r i b e d s h o u l d

for ev ery entity either produce a homeostatic system capable of meeting
every environmental

exigency,

or exhaust

the store of non-homeostatic

components and leave the entity at mortal risk when the next unexpected
change in the environment arrives.

75
There are two ways in which this seemingly inevitable result is pre ven ­
ted.

T h e firs t is that e v e r - l a r g e r e n t i t i e s k e e p f o r m i n g f r o m the

incorporation of sm a l l e r ones.

In the social sphere, for example, this

ha s r e s u l t e d in g i g a n t i c e n t i t i e s b u i l t up from many, m a n y l a y e r s of
lower-level structures;

but by itself such a process w o uld u lti ma tel y

p r o d u c e o n l y o n e s t r i c t l y h o m e o s t a t i c s oc i a l s y s t e m o v e r the e n t i r e
earth.

As

living systems become more and more complex,

appear to reach a point where
onmental" variation.

they

they become their own sources of "envir­

That is to say,

systems contain internal

however,

sufficiently complex

contradictions

that,

by providing

living

continuing

c h a l l e n g e s to one or a n o t h e r c o m p o n e n t , e n s u r e the g e n e r a t i o n of n e w
non-homeostatic components.

Presumably it is such types of systems that Buckley had in mind when he
talked

about

adaptive

systems.

Whether

on" or " de p e n d on" e n v i r o n m e n t a l
m u c h b e t t e r a b le ,

in the

in fact

such

systems "thrive

v a r i a t i o n , they c e r t a i n l y w o u l d be

l o n g run,

to s u r v i v e

in an e v e r - c h a n g i n g

environment than could any strictly homeostatic system -- no matter how
complicated.

It

is not aut omatically

true, however,

that upper-level

systems whose

l o w e r - l e v e l s t r u c t u r e s a re a d a p t i v e in the s ense j ust d e s c r i b e d are
themselves
vo l v e s

adaptive.

the homeostatic —

stituent structures,
those l ower-level
entity.

Since

the basic process of system-formation

not the non-homeostatic —

elements

in­

of con­

there is no assurance that the adaptive nature of

structures w i l l

have any effect on the upper- lev el

Su ch an o u t c o m e d e p e n d s

on w h e t h e r the h o m e o s t a t i c sy ste m

76
constructed is adequate to meet
the u p p e r - l e v e l system.
that the lower- lev el

the vicissitudes of the environment of

The o ne d i f f e r e n c e in s u c h a c a s e w o u l d be

structures

provide an ever-ready source of vari­

ety; u p p e r - l e v e l e n t i t i e s b u i l t from s u c h s t r u c t u r e s w o u l d not l ose
their adaptive potential in a simple environment.

With Buckley we w i l l

assume

that human beings are genuinely adaptive

e n t i t i e s w i t h re g a r d to t heir s o c i a l and m e n t a l processes.

T his a s ­

sumption means that any social system, at any level, has a never-ending
so ur c e of n o n - h o m e o s t a t i c c o m p o n e n t s .
homeostatic

behavior,

we must

If such an e n t i t y s h o w s o n l y

conclude

that its environment does not

r e q u i r e m o r e than the e x i s t i n g h o m e o s t a t i c s y s t e m of the e n t i t y for
effective

response.

We s h a l l a s s u m e that U n i t e d S t a t e s s o c i e t y is a g e n u i n e l y a d a p t i v e
system;

but

that no

level

of s o c i a l

s y s t e m w i t h i n it is ( a l t h o u g h

computerization and communication linkages may soon lead to much smal­
l e r a d a p t i v e s o c i a l systems).

O r g a n i z a t i o n s , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l dyads,

networks of social service organizations, and the entire Interorganiza­
tional networks of metropolitan areas we shall assume to be homeostatic
with a never-ending source of non-homeostatic components.

Such systems

will then display more or less adaptive behavior in response
environments.

The

practical

question

that results

to their

is how to distin­

guish homeostatic from adaptive responses.

We s h a l l treat as h o m e o s t a t i c r e s p o n s e s those that are a l l or none.
Although

this

is certainly a great simplification,

it depends

on

the

77
notion

that a homeostatic

response occurs

are pre s e n t in the e n v i r o n m e n t .

if the necessary

conditions

W h e r e a set of r e s p o n s e s c a n be d e s ­

c ri b e d as a s m o o t h f u n c t i o n (in the cases of our a n a l y s e s ,

a linear

function) of environmental variables, we w i l l conclude that an adaptive
pr o c e s s in ongo ing .
systems over time;

I d e a l l y we w o u l d f o l l o w the p r o c e s s in s i n g l e
instead we must here assume that the set of organi­

z a t i o n s (and sets of h i g h e r - l e v e l systems) s t u d i e d a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y
similar in their construction that one-time data across the set can be
substituted for longitudinal data.

3.

The Adequacy of the Network Data

The organizations examined

in this study are a subset of entire m e t ro­

politan area interorganizational

nets;

indeed,

since physical

health,

criminal justice, and educational o r g a n i z a t i o n s were e x c l u d e d d u r i n g
data-gathering,

the organizations examined are subsets of local

health and welfare agencies.

Trying to draw conclusions

about

mental
such a

subset requires caution,

since

to organizations outside

the sets studied are a major influence on the

processes reflected
sons,

however,

meaningful

First,

there are no data to determine if links

in the data actually gathered.

to a s s u m e

that

There are two rea­

the o r g a n i z a t i o n s

studied

do m a k e

a

subset.

the development of United Way organizations has regularized the

g a t h e r i n g of p r i v a t e f u n d i n g for s o c i a l
United Way funded organizations

that met

sets of organizations

Similarly,

studied.

ceive state and federal mental

service purposes,

and a l l

the size criterion are in the
the organizations

health and social

that re­

services funding for

78
local community services are uniformly in our subsets.
complete sets of organizations,

Secondly,

the o r g a n i z a t i o n s

therefore,

We have nearly

defined by funding.

in o u r sets are

the t o t a l i t y

of

t h os e

which, at the l o c a l l e v e l , s u b s t i t u t e o f f i c i a l l y for i n t e r p e r s o n a l
networks

that are

inadequate.

Wh ile

schools

and hospitals

obviously

dispense a form of social service, and while their c l i e n t e l e o b v i o u s l y
include persons with profound social needs,

they are organized

primar­

ily to provide a service to the entire community that anyone might be
e x p e c t e d to need.

The c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system, w h i l e it c o n t a i n s a

h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of p e r s o n s w i t h p r o f o u n d s o c i a l needs, is o r g a n i z e d
primarily to protect others from its clients —
themselves.

It is

the

not to help the clients

organizations we are studying that are specif­

i c a l l y d e s i g n e d to h e l p t h o s e w h o s e i n t e r p e r s o n a l
adequate to meet the needs of their lives.
i z a t i o n s s t u d i e d (the Red Cross,
nearly "normal" clientele,

n e t w o r k s are I n ­

Although some of the organ­

the Boy Scouts)

are a i m e d at m o r e

their Inclusion (given their common funding

sources) should have lit tle effect on ov erall Interpretations.

The next concern is the objectivity of the data collected
ganizational links.
tions,

The data are al l gathered from agency head percep­

w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of f o r m a l

within a project with a
m a n a g e r be ca m e

on interor­

relationships

separate manager —

a source

of

i n fo rm ati on.

that

In which case
As

took p l a c e
the

project

the r e v i e w of n e t w o r k

literature made clear,

such attributional data cannot be assumed

isomorphic with actual

relationships.

actional

To minimize

links are routinely considered

the problem,

to exist only if both

to be
inter­

parties

79
to the potential link reported it.

This does not co m p l e t e l y eliminate

bias, s i n c e the same c o n d i t i o n s that c a u s e one a g e n c y h e a d to n a m e a
particular agency may work in reverse for the head of the other agency.
More

damaging,

social

processes may

the omission of agencies

introduce a systematic

from those with whom

links are

bias

reported;

into
and

given our criterion, u n i l a t e r a l behavior could eliminate an actual link
from consideration.

We shal l have to assume,

without adequate support

th ere fo re, that the i n t e r a c t i o n a l l i n k a g e s d i s c o v e r e d by u s i n g o n l y
mutual reporting properly reflect the actual social services network.

A number

of u m b r e l l a

agencies

which dispensed

or

coordinated

funding

were on the list of o r g a n i z a t i o n s that c o u l d be c hosen, but w e r e not
interviewed

themselves.

social services,

Because these agencies did not d e l i v e r direct

t h ere is g o o d r e a s o n

to b e l i e v e

that i n t e r a g e n c y

interaction related to actual service delivery is properly r eflected in
the ties among the remaining agencies.

Again,

without

proper

support,

we sh all have to assume that this is true, and also that the handful of
direct-service agencies who chose not

to participate in this study did

not bias the results.

A final concern is that the data collected are binary,
relationships

that may be quite different in volume

to the o v e r a l l network.

and thus equate

and in importance

We w i l l assume that the differences in organ­

ization size in the cities under consideration are not

large enough to

render any organization co mp let ely unimportant; and our hypotheses w i l l
be fra m e d a r o u n d the d e g r e e of c o n n e c t e d n e s s in n e t w o r k s r a t h e r than
the volume of interaction between various pairs.

If our assumption is

80
corre ct ,

the n a t u r e of o u r h y p o t h e s e s m a y ens u r e

that

the

findings

point in the proper direction.

C.

The Interaction of Organizational Characteristics
and Dyad Formation

1.

Since

Theoretical Explication

the l e v e l of a n a l y s i s

s e r v i n g as the p r i m a r y f o c u s

dissertation is the network of social
the importance of organizational
th e i r e f f e c t s

on t h e

service organizations

characteristics

for

in a city,

as va ria ble s

relationships with

from doing so,

lies

in

f o r m a t i o n of interorganizational relationships.

If organizational processes impel some social service agencies
out

this

other organizations,

to seek

but hinder other agencies

then intervenors wishing to alter the network of social

service agencies in a city must pay attention to the nature of the in­
dividual organizations

in the network,

and use their resources

a l t e r e x i s t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s (or c r e a t e n e w ones)
that w i l l

form the d e s i r e d

relationships.

If,

on

to help

to be of the type
the

other

hand,

social service organizations g e n e r a l l y tend to form relationships as a
r e a c t i o n to e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s , r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r i n t e r n a l
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , t h e n it w o u l d be n e c e s s a r y for an i n t e r v e n o r to put
its resources into environmental changes.

If both l e v e l s of processes

a f f e c t the outco me, a t h o r o u g h k n o w l e d g e of the i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n
lev els is essential

to permit an intervenor

for the resources available.

to obtain the most effect

81
A handful

of a s s u m p t i o n s w i l l

h e l p g u id e us b a c k t h r o u g h

traversed by Aiken and Hage and by Paulsen.

the a r e a

The first is that organi­

za t i o n s tend to f o r m r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i th o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s .
relationships

are u s e d

to o b t a i n re so urc es,

to p r o t e c t

These

themselves

through building alliances, and to provide a means for gaining informa­
tion about and c on tro l l i n g

their environment —

which consists primar­

ily of other organizations.

A second assumption is that organization size is a crucial
include

in any study

relating

other and to variables at other

organizational
levels

va r i a b l e to

characteristics

of analysis.

Besides

to each
the fact

that a strong relationship between size and complexity has been empir­
i c a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e n u m b e r of e m p l o y e e s an o r g a n i z a t i o n has o b ­
vi ously affects

the v o l u m e

of relationships

it can carry on,

one assumes the effect is linear or some other function.

whether

(Haire (1959)

assumed that the effect depends on the number of positions allo ca ted to
external

relations,

the sq u a r e of size.)
the total

which he concluded

increases as

the cube root of

It is e s s e n t i a l to d e t e r m i n e the p r o p o r t i o n of

variance size accounts for, and not simply to test (as Aiken

and Hage did) w h e t h e r the c o r r e l a t i o n re m a i n s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y l a r g e
after size is controlled.

A third assumption is that innovation is a byproduct of the interaction
between an organization and its environment,
explanatory power in its

own

right.

To

and not a

vari abl e

with

the extent that certain types

of innovations directly affect either internal processes or interorgan­
izational

contacts,

those

types of innovations should be separated as

82
particular variables,
While

the

not

treated as indices of innovation generally.

creation of new programs may stimulate internal

demand for

a d d i t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s , as A i k e n and Hage a s s u m e (1968, p. 372), s u c h a
measure hardly serves to represent the effects of all types of innova­
tions.

The assumption here w i l l be that new programs serve as a m ec h­

anism by which an organization increases in size and/or complexity, and
by which it forms

relations with other organizations

to help

control

its environment, and therefore reflect demand for resources rather than
generate it.

A fourth assumption is that the internal functioning of an organization
is not related to the
tions.

formation of relationships with other

S ince we c o n c e i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n s to be h o m e o s t a t i c

organiza­
systems,

their internal workings should be r e l a t i v e l y buffered from the external
environment.

External

r e l a t i o n s h i p s s h o u l d depend, r ather,

on the

capabilities and pressures that increasing size and complexity entail.
The enabling

aspect

of

size was discussed

earlier.

Complexity,

ceived as variety in the types of positions in an organization,

con­
repre­

sents the v a r i e t y in the ties to o t her o r g a n i z a t i o n s that e m p l o y e e s '
past h i s t o r i e s b r i n g to an a g e n c y and the

b r e a d t h of ties that t h e r e ­

fore may be activated by the staff of an agency.

In summary, then:
(I)

On the basis of e s t a b l i s h e d findings,

a g e n c y staff size is e x ­

p e c t e d to be s t r o n g l y and d i r e c t l y

r e l a t e d too r g a n i z a t i o n a l

complexity as measured by the number

of types of positions in the

agency.

83
(2)

Because of its enabling function in the development of interorgan­
izational

relationships,

agency

size

is expected

to be

strongly

and directly related to the number of such relationships formed.
(3)

Because of its enabling function in the development of interorgan­
izational

relationships,

a g e n c y c o m p l e x i t y is e x p e c t e d

to be

strongly and directl y related to the number of such relationships
formed.
(A)

Because the tendency of agencies to develop new programs reflects
a complicated interaction between the capacity of the organization
and demands of the environment,

innovation is expected

to show no

relationship to the f o r m a t i o n of i n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

relation­

ships, size, or complexity if the other two are controlled; nor is
it e x p e c t e d

to s h o w a r e l a t i o n s h i p

to i n t e r n a l

organizational

variables when size, complexity, and IOR are controlled.
(5)

Since organizations are assumed

to be homeostatic,

interorganiza­

tional relations are assumed to be (from the perspective of organ­
izations)

a

t oo l

therefore expected

in m a i n t a i n i n g

thei r

functioning.

There

is

to be no relationship between dyadic and intra-

organlzatlonal vari abl es when size and complexity are controlled.

2.

Data and Method of Analysis

Bel ow are the working definitions of the variables used in this part of
the analysis:
1.

Size — * the square

root of the total number of ful 1 - time-equiva­

lent paid positions.
2.

Complexity -- number of occupational
agency.

specialties employed

Agency heads were asked to list the occupational

by the

special-

ties
by

their agencies

project

and

the entries were

later counted

staff.

Innovation —
years,

employed,

A g e n c y h e ad s w e r e a s k e d wh e t h e r , i n the la st f i v e

their agency had:

(a)

begun new programs

because they were legally mandated;

(b)

begun new programs

that were not legally mandated;

(c)

o f f e r e d s e r v i c e to new c l i e n t g r o u p s b e c a u s e of l e g a l m a n ­
date;

(d)

offered
dated;

(e)

i n c r e a s e d the t o t a l n u m b e r of s e r v i c e s and p r o g r a m s it o f ­
fered.

service

to new cl ien t groups where not

l e g a l l y man ­

A n s w e r s to t h e s e q u e s t i o n s w e r e used to form an i n d e x w i t h p o s ­
sible val ues ranging from 0 to 5.
Centralization —

S e v e n d i f f e r e n t areas of decision-making were

s p e c i f i e d (see l i s t in

A p p e n d i x A-3, p. 3), and a g e n c y h e a d s w e r e

asked to identify those

categories of employees (from a list

which participated in the decision-making in each area.

of 8)

One point

was added each time senior professional staff, junior professional
staff, or p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l staff were l i s t e d for an area.
resulting

index

ranged

from 0 (none of

the three groups

p ati n g in d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g in a n y area) to 21 ( a l l
participating

in decision-making in a l l

then subtracted from 21 so that high

7 areas).

scores would

The

partici­

three g r o u p s
This

score was

indicate

r ela ­

tive centralization of decision-making.
Formalization — * agency heads were asked to identify, on a 5-point
scale, the extent to which written criteria were used in each of 9
ar eas of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

op er ati on.

distinctions among substantive

Observing

Mor s e ' s

types of formalization,

(1977)

o n l y those

6 areas that direc tl y related to the work content of professional
staff were used to form the Index (see list in Appendix B-3).

The

r e s u l t i n g i n d e x w a s c o n s t r u c t e d to ra nge in v a l u e f r o m 0 to 24.
The c o n s t r u c t i o n of this m e a s u r e p e r m i t s a b e t t e r test of A i k e n
and

Hage's

fifth

hypothesis

than

t h eir ow n did,

and

predicts

results in the same direction.
Internal Communication —

a g e n c y h e a d s w e r e a s k e d to iden ti fy,

from a l i s t of e i g h t (see

l i s t in A p p e n d i x 4),

agency decision-making

for which permanent

staff

those

areas

of

committees were

used, and the e x t e n t to w h i c h the c o m m i t t e e s w e r e u s e d (5-p oi nt
scale).

Th e r e s u l t i n g i n d ex w a s c o n s t r u c t e d to r a n g e in v a l u e

from 0 to 32.
Interorganlzational

relations (IOR) —

identify other organizations

Agency heads were asked

in their city

for whom

they

to

carried

out p r o gr am s, w h o c a r r i e d out p r o g r a m s for them, a n d w i t h w h o m
they had formal joint programs.

In addition, where joint programs

w e r e i d e n t i f i e d , t he n a me of a key a d m i n i s t r a t o r in the p r o g r a m
was i d e n t i f i e d , and s e p a r a t e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e sent
persons

to obtain complete

information on the nature

to these

of the pro­

g r a m and the l i s t of o r g a n i z a t i o n s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in it.
with

other

sp on s e

organizations

to the

three

resulting

questions

from mutual

on the

selection

questionnaire,

Li nks
in

re­

or b e i n g

identified by a program administrator in the special joint-pragram
survey,

were

counted

for each

organization.

The

resulting

v a ri­

a b l e v a l u e Is the n u m b e r of o r g a n i z a t i o n s to w h i c h a p a r t i c u l a r
organization is linked by formal agreement.

86
8.

Efficiency —

The agency budget: divided by the number of adminis­

trative positions.

COMPARISON OF THE DATA TO AIKEN AND HAGE'S AND TO PAULSON'S DATA
1.

Size.

Paulson did not use this variable.

Aiken and Hage did not

specify how their measure of size was obtained, and they used rank
o r d e r r a t h e r than a c t u a l
makes

the measure

s ize as

the v a r i a b l e (p.

suspect as a control

in a partial

391),

which

correlation.

In addition, they only used it as a control variable.
2.

Complexity.

Aiken and Hage had a more careful version of the same

thing: they counted specialties themselves based on the employees'
descriptions of

their work (p.

381).

Paulson had a quite differ­

ent measure: number of administrative positions with title of (or
s i m i l a r to) " a s s i s t a n t " (p. 334).
3.

Innovation.

T h e m e a s u r e u sed in this s t u d y is v e r y weak.

Aiken

and Hage obtained a count of the number of successfully implement­
ed n e w p r o g r a m s

in the e i g h t years b e f o r e

their s t u d y (p.385).

Paulson used a count of the major changes in geographical

location

and service activities over the past five years and anticipated in
the coming
4.

five

Centralization.
used here.

years (p. 335).
A i k e n and Hage's m e a s u r e is s i m i l a r to the one

The four d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g a r e a s they u s e d w e r e w er e

among those used here.

In addition,

rat her than a g e n c y h e a d e s t i m a t e s

they used mean employee
in f o r m i n g

their

responses

i n d e x (p.

Paulson's description of his measure is vague: "Composite:

388).

frequency of

n e w p r o g r a m i n i t i a t i o n by u n i t p l u s l e v e l of a u t o n o m y in d e c i s i o n ­
m a k i n g w h i c h a f f e c t s unit" (p. 334).

87
5.

Formalization*

A i k e n and H a g e had three m e a s u r e s of f o r m a l i z a ­

tion, n o n e of w h i c h c o r r e s p o n d c l o s e l y to ours.

The c l o s e s t is

the one they c a l l "specificity of job" which was formed by combin­
ing answers to 6 questions about the strictness of job procedures
(p. 390).

Paulson formed his measure from the frequency of use of

w r i t t e n p r o c e d u r e s and the l e v e l of d e t a i l in w r i t t e n p o l i c i e s
(p. 334).
6.

Internal

communication.

Our measure

to either of Aiken and Hage's:

does not exactly correspond

number of committees and number of

n u m b e r of c o m m i t t e e m e e t i n g s per m o n t h (p. 386).

P a u l s o n uses

only the number of committee meetings per month (p. 334).
7.

IOR.

Aiken and Hage consider only formal joint programs (pp. 379-

80).

Paulson Includes both the giving and receiving of resources

and participation
8.

E f fic ie ncy .

in joint programs (p.335).

A i k e n and Hage did not use this v a r i a b l e .

Paulson

used the m u l t i p l i c a t i v e inverse of the variable as it is defined
he r e (p. 334).

The p r e s e n t s t u d y p r o v i d e s th ree a d v a n t a g e s o v e r the e a r l i e r ones.
First of all, the number of organizations examined is much greater: 272
a g e n c i e s p r o v i d e d d a t a on a l l v a r i a b l e s .

Secondly,

organizations

the

is much greater,

encompassing

s e r v i c e and m e n t a l h e a l t h o r g a n i z a t i o n s .
from twelve cities,

range

of

social

F i n a l l y , d a ta ar e p r e s e n t

providing twe lve case studies that can be double­

checked against the o v e r a l l
drawbacks

full

the v a r i e t y o f

to e a r l i e r w o r k

data.

Unfortunately,

is p r e s e n t

a b s e n c e of l o n g i t u d i n a l data.

one of the greatest

in this s t u dy as w e l l

—

the

It is not p o s s i b l e to test the basic

88
mech a n i s m proposed here —

that i n c r e a s i n g size and its

correlate,

i n c r e a s i n g d i v e r s i t y b o t h e n a b l e a g r e a t e r n u m b e r of i n t e r o r g a n i z a tional relations,

and that each is in turn augmented by an increase in

organizational relations (up to some limit set by a v a i l a b l e resources)
—

without such data.

As a consequence,

only

the existence of a rela­

tion between each pair can be tested for.

The m e t h o d of a n a l y s i s to be u s e d w i l l be c o r r e l a t i o n a l .
thesis

to be

tested

specifies

the effects of controls on a zero-order

Pearson correlation between two variables.
u s ing o r d i n a r y p a r t i a l

correlation,

v a r i a n c e r e m a i n i n g to be e x p l a i n e d ,
variables,

Each h y p o ­

Control w ill be carried out

which

shows the p r o p o r t i o n of

a f te r c o n t r o l l i n g for a set of

that a particular other independent

variable accounts

for

(Nie et al., 1972, pp. 332-334).

The

use

of

size as

a variable

raises

the q u e s t i o n

of w h a t

f o r m a t i o n of it (if any) is a p p r o p r i a t e for the a n a l y s i s .
Schoenherr (1971) used
ity.

trans­

B l a u and

the logarithm of size to compare it to com plex­

H a i re (1959) u s e d the s q u a r e of the cube root of size to c o m p a r e

it to the n u m b e r of p o s i t i o n s w i t h e x t e r n a l contact.

T h e us e of the

square root transformation here is based on the fact that the number of
r e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g a set of e n t i t i e s I n c r e a s e s as the s q u a r e of the
n u m b e r of entities.

If the e n t i r e staff of an a g e n c y is c o n s i d e r e d

a v a i l a b l e for maintaining external relations, therefore, IOR should be
related to the square root of staff size.

Our data are not adequate to

support fine distinctions in the exponent applied to size for analysis.
We w i l l assume that the square root is an adequate approximation.

With

twelve subsets (our cities) contained within the ov e r a l l
z a t i o n s it is p o s s i b l e

set of organi­

to test w h e t h e r the p h e n o m e n a we p r e d i c t are

w i d e s p r e a d , or w h e t h e r the r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d in the c o m b i n e d d a t a set
simply reflect v e r y strong results in certain cities.

The probability

of obtaining correlations of a given sign in sets of data
uted b i n o m i a l l y w i t h a p r o b a b i l i t y of 0.5.
positive correlation, therefore,
nificances of the correlations,
the correlations in cities

is distrib­

If e n o u g h c i t i e s h a v e a

regardless

of the s t a t i s t i c a l

we can reject the null hypothesis that

like ours are not

positive.

The number of

cities in a sample of 12 that must have positive correlations
binomial

probability

to drop be low 0.05 is

of Harvard University,

(a)

For a l l

10 (Computation

for the

Laboratory

1952, p. 404).

3.

1.

sig­

Specific Hypotheses

organizations,

agency

size w i l l

have a significant

positive zero-order Pearson correlation with agency c omplex­
ity.
(b)

When partial

correlation

is used

to control

of IOR and of agency centralization,

for the effects

formalization,

communication, and efficiency, agency size w i l l

internal

still have a

significant positive correlation with agency complexity.
(c)*

Positive zero-order and partial correlations (as specified in
parts (a) and (b) above) w i l l occur in the organizations
of at least

2.

(a)

For a l l

sets

ten of the twelve cities studied.

organizations,

agency size will

have

a significant

positive zero-order Pearson correlation with IOR.

(b)

When partial
of

correlation is used

agency complexity,

to control

centralization,

for the effects

formalization,

inter­

n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n , a n d e f f i c i e n c y , a g e n c y size w i l l s t i l l
have a significant positive correlation with IOR,
(c)

Positive

zero-order and partial correlations (as specified in

parts (a) and (b) above) w i l l
of at least

(a)

occur in the organization sets

ten of the twelve cities studied.

For a l l organizations, agency complexity will have a signif­
icant positive zero-order Pearson correlation with IOR,

(b)

When partial

correlation is used

of agency size, centralization,
munication,

and efficiency,

to control

for

the effects

formalization, internal

the partial

correlation

com­

between

agency c omp lexity and IOR, agency complexity w i l l still have
a significant positive correlation with IOR.
(c)

Positive
parts (a)

zero-order and partial correlations (as specified in
and (b) above) will occur in the organizations sets

of at least ten of the twelve cities studied.

G i v e n as a d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e a g e n c y i n n o v a t i o n , and g i v e n as
Independent var ia ble s

the

size,

complexity,

and IOR count of the

a g e n c y (set 1); and the c e n t r a l i z a t i o n , i n t e r n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n ,
formalization,

and efficiency of the agency (set 2):

(a)

when partial

correlation

is used

to control

for the effects

of the other va riables in set 1, each variable in set 1 w i l l
fail

to h a v e

a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the

dependent variable;
(b)

when partial

correlation

of the v a r i a b l e s

is used

in set

to control

for the effects

1, e a c h of the v a r i a b l e s in set 2

w i l l fail to have a significant positive correlation with the
dependent variable;
(c)

the partial correlations specified in (a) and (b) above,
examined

separately

e a c h case

n ot

for

the twelve

cities

studied,

be s i g n i f i c a n t l y m o r e of one s i g n

when

will

in

than the

other.

G i v e n as d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s

the centralization, formalization,

internal communication and efficiency of an agency, as an indepen­
dent

variable

the IOR count of the agency,

bles

the complexity and size of the agency:

(a)

when partial c o r r e l a t i o n
the control variables,

and as control

is used to c o n t r o l

the e f f e c t s of

the independent variable w i l l

have a significant positive

varia­

fail

to

c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h e a c h of the

dependent v a r i a b l e s ;
(b)

the partial correlation specified in (a) above, when examined
s e p a r a t e l y for the o r g a n i z a t i o n sets of the t w e l v e c i t i e s
studied,
sign

will

than

the

in each case not be significantly more of one
other.

92
D.

The Development of Dyadic Interaction

1.

Theoretical Explication

A replication of Rogers' and Klonglan's method provides a very general
test for the relative complexity of the environment in which organiza­
tional dyads are

formed.

Since organizational

dyads

are here

assumed

to be adaptive systems, they should show adaptive behavior in env iron­
ments complex enough to evoke it.

In environments too simple to evoke

adaptive behavior, adaptive systems would be expected to show behavior
indistinguishable from homeostatic systems.

In network terms, Rogers and Kl o n g l a n et al. studied the development of
m u l t i p l e x i t y in o r g a n i z a t i o n a l dyads.

A d y ad can be I n t e r p r e t e d to

"grow" simply by increasing frequency of contact or volume of exchange
along a single dimension.
detected without

N o t h i n g a b o u t s u c h g r o w t h p a t t e r n s can be

longitudinal

data.

Dyadic "growth" can also

a d d i t i o n of t ypes of l i n k s to those a l r e a d y existing.
this

type of growth

sequence,

dyads

however,
observed

the

D e t e c t i o n of

in a single dyad also requires longitudinal

In a population of dyads,
invariant

mean

data.

if the addition of links follows an
at any point in

time w i l l

exhibit

the p r e s e n c e of a g i v e n type of l i n k o n l y if the types of l i n k s that
ar e p r e c u r s o r s are presen t.

It thus b e c o m e s p o s s i b l e w i t h o n e - t i m e

data to test hypotheses about one aspect of dyadic growth over

Two aspects

of the environments of the dyads studied here

lead

time.

to the

p r e d i c t i o n that they are c o m p l e x e n o u g h to e v o k e a d a p t i v e b e h a v i o r .
The first is the v a r i e t y of r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e : 51 % of the a g e n c i e s

93
I n d i c a t e d that their s o u r c e s of f u n d i n g had i n c r e a s e d o v e r
five

years. Ninety-six

percent

of

the organizations

the past

providing

data on

the question reported more than one source of funding, and 77% reported
more than two.

While

funding is fairly concentrated in many organiza­

tions, o v e r 40% got at l e a s t 25% of their f u n d i n g from o u t s i d e their
pr i m a r y source.

The second condition

leading

us

to predict that environments are com­

plex enough to evoke adaptive behavior is the amount of change in the
networks providing resources to and controlling the organizations form­
ing the dyads.

M o s t of the o r g a n i z a t i o n s c o m p o s i n g the n e t w o r k s are

r e l a t i v e l y young:

the majority came into existence in the two decades

be f o r e this s t u d y was d one in r e s p o n s e to g r o w i n g d e m a n d for m e n t a l
h e a l t h s e r v i c e s and s e r v i c e s to the aging,
minority groups;
fore,

most

are also still

relationships

to women,

and to e t h n i c

that make up the networks,

r e l a t i v e l y new.

there­

The relative newness of most of

each network, combined with other sources of change, have resulted in a
f er m e n t of s e r v i c e - r e l a t e d c han ge s: 85% of the o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n t e r ­
viewed

indicated changes

in sources of funds,

or services

they had been mandated

3 y e a r s p r i o r to the study.

circumstances

56% indicated

changes

dyad

and 31%

to serve new client groups in the

O n l y 5% i n d i c a t e d no c h a n g e on any of

and 54% indicated changes on three or more.

surrounding

loca­

to participate in new

over the three years prior to the study,

indicated that they had been mandated

these parameters,

programs,

48% indicated changes in number of service

tions, 41% indicated that
programs

in number of

formation and existence have

state of flux along several dimensions for several years.

Thus

the

been in a

94
Since an invariant sequence to the building of multiplexity in dyads is
evidence of homeostatic behavior;

since it is assumed here that organ­

izational dyads are adaptive systems, and thus w ill display homeostatic
behavior only in environments
an d sin ce the e n v i r o n m e n t s

too simple

of

to evoke

adaptive

the d y a d s h e r e s t u d i e d a p p e a r

complex enough to evoke adaptive behavior in dyads;
m e n t of m u l t i p l e x i t y in this
variable.

Specifically,

behavior;
to be

then the de v e l o p ­

p o p u l a t i o n of d y a d s s h o u l d be h i g h l y

a t t e m p t s to s c a l e types of l i n k s b e t w e e n

organizations should fall.

2.

The Data and Method of Analysis

The data useful for scaling relational components are the responses
the t w e l v e n e t w o r k q u e s t i o n s

to

that describe interaction between agen­

cies :
1.

other agency provides cooperation and support;

2.

conflict in past few years;

3.

other agency refers clients;

4.

own agency refers clients

5.

e x c h a n g e opinions,information, and ideas;

6.

s e r v e on same
forces;

7.

rely

8.

have cooperative informal relationship;

9.

have

community

to other agency;

committees

and

planning

task

on other agency to de l i v e r own agency's services;

formal relationship:

run program(s) for other agency;

10.

have formal relationship:
own agency;

other agency runs programs

11.

have formal relationship: operate joint program;

12.

have formal relationship:

other kind.

for

95
This l i s t as a w h o l e is not u s a b l e

for the a n a l y s i s

here.

S i nc e a

r e l a t i o n s h i p has b e e n d e f i n e d to oc cur o n l y if a c k n o w l e d g e d by b o t h
p a r t i c i p a n t s , items 1 a n d 7 c a n n o t be used at a l l since n e i t h e r has a
complementary question.

Mut ual acknowledgment of conflict (item 2) and

of e a c h of the four t ypes of f o r m a l a r r a n g e m e n t s (items 9 t h r o u g h 12)
is so rare that the resulting data sets are unusable for scaling.

The

referral of clients (items 3 and 4) can be verified in each direction;
the i n t e r s e c t i o n of those two sets, h o w e v e r , w h i c h p r o v i d e s a m u t u a l
relationship, is likewise too small to be usable for scaling.

T h e o n l y three items l e f t a r e the e x c h a n g e of o pinions, i n f o r m a t i o n ,
and ideas (it em 5); m u t u a l
cooperative

relationships

g r o u p m e m b e r s h i p (i tem 6); and

(item 8).

informal

A fourth item can be constructed

however, from the union of the very small data sets created from mutual
responses

to i tems 9 t h r o u g h

project managers

12,

adding

for joint programs.

in the dyads i d e n t i f i e d by

The resulting type of link (for­

mal cooperative relationship) is a set large enough to use for scaling.

The construction of

the

links

identified was different

in one signif­

i c a n t w a y from the d a t a that R o g e r s and that K l o n g l a n a n a l y z e d .
each of their studies,

In

the actual responses of agency heads were a n a l ­

yzed, so that they a c t u a l l y m e a s u r e d the t e n d e n c y of a g e n c y h e a d s to
report given patterns rather than the actual patterns.
work by Russell

and Bernard established,

two are i somorphic.

it cannot be assumed that the

S i nc e the i n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

study are based on mutual

reports,

As the reviewed

tie d a t a in this

they should more nea rly correspond

to the a c t u a l p a t t e r n of ties in the sets of o r g a n i z a t i o n s , an d thus

96
m o r e a d e q u a t e l y test the p r o p o s i t i o n s that Ro ger s a nd K l o n g l a n put
forth.

Any differences In findings here compared with theirs may be in

part or in total a result of the difference in measures.

Si n c e the h y p o t h e s i s h e r e is that s c a l i n g s h o u l d not occur, the m o s t
e x a c t i n g test p o s s i b l e is to s c a l e o n l y three items, an d to use
be s t e m p i r i c a l

ordering

r a t h e r than any p r e - c h o s e n one.

scale cannot be formed with fewer than three items;

the

A Guttman

to use

three items

is the most exacting test because each added item increases the likel i­
hood

that irregularities

in the data will

reduce scalability.

To use

the best e m p i r i c a l o r d e r i n g is m o s t e x a c t i n g b e c a u s e no t h e o r e t i c a l
ordering can do better.
items

Preliminary scaling runs showed that the three

that are prima facie candidates for a scale of progressive com­

m i t m e n t to r e l a t i o n s h i p ou t of the four p o s s i b l e , a l s o s h o w h i g h e s t
scaling potential. These three items are:
—

exchange

opinions, information , and

ideas

—

have cooperative informal relationship

—

have formal cooperative relationship

The links to be analyzed in this study were not chosen to correspond to
those used by Rogers and Klonglan.

"Exchange of opinions,

information,

and ideas" is m u c h m o r e i n c l u s i v e than the e x i s t e n c e of an a g e n c y o n
another's mailing
and Klonglan.
the sharing,

list —

the

closest

equivalent

item used

A "cooperative informal relationship"

by

Rogers

probably includes

lo a n i n g , a n d p r o v i d i n g of r e s o u r c e s u sed as an i t em by

R o g e r s and by K l o n g l a n ;

but

it a l s o may i n c l u d e j o int p r o g r a m m i n g

a r r a n g e m e n t s that h a v e not b e en f o r m a l i z e d in w r i t i n g —

a category

97
that is included by K l o n g l a n (who does not distinguish between
and informal

joint program arrangements).

Finally,

"formal

gra m s " i n c l u d e s both the c o n c e p t of joint p r o g r a m m i n g —
item on Klonglan's

list —

and

formal written agreement,

formal

joint pro­
a separate

which is the

topmost leve l of relationship for both-Rogers and Klonglan.

Clearly, then, the analysis here replicates Rogers and/or K l o n g l a n very
generally,

not

in any

specific

th ei r s t u d i e s need comment.
(and,

sense.
First,

Two

additional

contrasts

with

the populations of organizations

presumably, dyads) in this study more nearly resemble Klonglan's

county-level set than Rogers' set in being providers of direct services
to clients.

There is therefore

oretical reasons already given,
scalability of items) rather
items).

Second,

some empirical

reason, beyond

to expect results like Klonglan's (low

than Rogers' (much higher

the a g e n c i e s s t u d i e d here ar e a l l

ganizations equivalent

the the­

scalability

of

l o c a l - l e v e l or­

to the county l e v e l in Klonglan's study.

There

is therefore no reason to expect the wide variability in best empirical
ordering that he linked to differential administrative level.

3.

Specific Hypothesis

A Guttman scaling procedure a p pl ie d
interaction —

exchange of opinions,

to these three types of d y a d i c
information,

and ideas;

informal

cooperative relationships; and formal cooperative relationships —

even

if using the best empirical ordering, w i l l fall to produce a scale with
both reproducibility greater than 0.9 and a s c a l a b i l i t y g r e a t e r
0.6.

This f a i l u r e w i l l

cities,

than

o c c u r b o t h for a l l dy ads a c r o s s the t w e l v e

and for the dyads in each particular city.

98
E.

The Conditioning of Dyadic Relationships

by Network Characteristics

1.

Theoretical Explication

A network concept u s e f u l l y r e l e v a n t

to the l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w e d on

interorganizational networks is c e n t r a l i t y .

The r e s o u r c e d e p e n d e n c e

p e r s p e c t i v e d e f i n e s n e t w o r k s as a set of exc ha nge s, in w h i c h o r g a n ­
i z a t i o n s w i t h m a n y r e s o u r c e s h a v e the p o t e n t i a l to f o r m ( n e g o t ia te)
more relationships than organizations with few resources.

The relative

number of relationships of an organization is one aspect of centrality
—

The

one L. Freeman c a l l s degree (1979, pp. 219-221).

larger number of direct

sources

to ex c h a n g e ,

relations

of

organizations

with many

re­

c o m b i n e d w i t h t heir i m p o r t a n c e as a s o u r c e of

resources within the network generally, make them likely to be very few
exchange links away from any other organization and thus to have a very
l o w a v e r a g e d i s t a n c e f r o m o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s in the network.

The

average distance is a second aspect of centrality, which Freeman labels
closeness (pp. 224-226).

Finally,

the

greater number

with many resources,

of direct

combined with

links formed

the wider

by organizations

variety of relationships

those resources are likely to enable, w i l l tend to make those organiza­
tions s e r v e as tr a d i n g hubs,
rectly.

Existence on the indirect links joining other organizations is

a third aspect of c e n t r a l i t y ,
121-124).

linking many other organizations indi­

w h i c h F r e e m a n l a b e l s b e t w e e n n e s s (pp.

99
Th ese three a s p e c t s of i n d i v i d u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c e n t r a l i t y c a n be
generalized

to

measures

of

centralization

(Freeman, 1979, pp. 226-231).
the sum of differences
other organization,

in

an

entire

network

E a c h is g e n e r a l i z e d in the same way: as

between

the most

central

organization and each

divided by the maximum possible such sum given

number of organizations

In the organizational

the

in the network.

networks we

are studying,

n o r m a l l y c o mes from o u t s i d e the net works;
network is going to stem primarily
organizations more endowed with

legal

coercive

power

so that power w i t h i n the

from resource

availability.

resources would be expected

Then

to become

most central; and centralization in the entire network would be expect­
ed

to d i m i n i s h as the n u m b e r of o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i t h s u b s t a n t i a l

re­

sources of their own increases.

If we start with a fai rly centralized network with a certain number of
relations,

there are three ways to change the le vel of centralization:

(1) replace ties to a central node with ties between two nodes that are
not c e n t r a l ; (2) add ties to the n e t w o r k that are d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y
between non-central

nodes;

(3) subtract

disproportionately from those i n v o l v i n g
Marsden (1983,

ties from the network that are
central

nodes.

L a u m a n n and

pp. 334-336) maintain that networks with less concentra­

tion of resources will

generate more exchange

ties.

It is consistent

w i t h b o t h their s u b s t a n t i v e a s s e r t i o n a nd the l o g i c a l one a b o v e to
p r o p o s e this:

if n e w c e n t e r s of r e s o u r c e s are a d d e d to a n e t w o r k (by

inserting new organizations,
number

of ties dev elo ped

or b e t t e r e n d o w i n g e x i s t i n g ones), the

between

relatively

poorly

endowed

organiza-

100
Cions w i l l
vo l v i n g

increase

r e l a tiv ely

This proposition,
venor desiring
—

proportionately more
wel l- endowed

if true,

to increase

than

organizations

the number

(a mu lti p l i e r

would provide useful guidance
the rate of

of

in­

effect).

to an inter-

interconnection among

for example to encourage joint programming as a way

ties

agencies

to provide more

services to clients.

F o r any s i n g l e o r g a n i z a t i o n in a netwo rk, h o w e v e r , r e g a r d l e s s of its
le vel

of endowment,

the network analysis above shows

that

it w i l l

be

most central (at least in the sense of closeness and betweenness) if it
has connections
(in an y sense).

to one or more

organizations

that are already central

This p o i n t is c r u c i a l to the p l a n n i n g for n e w o r g a n ­

izations in social service networks.
d e s c r i b e w h a t occ u r s in a c t u a l

If the logical argument proves to

n e t w or ks,

an i n t e r v e n o r p l a n n i n g to

create a new organization for providing certain services would be w ell
advised

to mandate

relationships

to it by those organizations already

central in the network.

F i n a l l y , w h e n o n l y a fe w o r g a n i z a t i o n s h a v e r es our c e s , no t o n l y the
basic exchange relationships but o t h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s (the r e d u n d a n c y
that L a u m a n n and M a r s d e n r e f e r to (p. 336)) are l i k e l y to be c o n c e n ­
trated on the well-endowed organizations.
however,

Contrary to their assertion,

this mult ipl exi ty should diminish when resource concentration

and its consequent network centralization is reduced.

Redundancy (seen

from the perspective of an individual organization) can be achieved by
multiplexity, but it can also be achieved by mu l t i p l e simplex relation­
ships.

The c h o i c e b e t w e e n m u l t i p l e x i t y and m u l t i p l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s

101
should

u ltimately depend

on w h i c h

is

the m o r e

costly

(this

is

an

analogue of Williamson's contention that internal hierarchies are built
as alternatives

to

external

market

[exchange]

the r e l a t i v e c osts of e a c h (1975, pp. 8-10).
m u l t i p l e relationships

relationships

based

on

In at l e ast some cases,

should prove advantageous,

and thus reduce the

o v e r a l l multiplexity of the network.

In summary, we are predicting that:
1.

organizations with ties to central organizations in a network
w i l l h a ve more exchange relationships generally;

2.

n e t w o r k s w i t h m o r e c e n t e r s of r e s o u r c e c o n c e n t r a t i o n w i l l
have a higher density of

ties between non-central

organiza­

tions ;
3.

n e t w o r k s w i t h m o r e c e n t e r s of r e s o u r c e c o n c e n t r a t i o n w i l l
tend to have a lower o ve r a l l le vel of multiplexity.

2.

Data and Method of Analysis

The a n a l y s i s for this s e c t i o n r e q u i r e s a w o r k i n g d e f i n i t i o n of those
organizations

that are "centers of

resource concentration".

The

study

on which this dissertation is based contains no measures of the resour­
ces

directly a v a i l a b l e

for

exchange

that

various organizations

have.

The re are data on b u d g e t s a n d s t a f f sizes, a nd these m i g h t m a k e a d e ­
quate substitute measures;
missing data showed

but an analyis of the bias among cases with

that any analyses based on organizational

charac­

t e r i s t i c s (such as b u d g e t and s t a f f size) w o u l d be h i g h l y s u s p e c t if
they depended on the a v a i l a b l e data to estimate the actual distribution
of those characteristics in the entire set.

102
Aldrich maintains (1976b, p. 423), however,
literature generally echoes

the contention,

of resource ava il abi lit y w i l l
network.
measure

W hi l e

and the resource dependency
that predominance in terms

result in general

the data a v a i l a b l e

of resource availability,

predominance within a

do not provide an adequate
they do include

responses

direct

to

three

separate attributive questions that can provide indirect measures:
1.

What agencies
community?

have

the

most

2.

What agencies have the most influence over social
service decisions in this community?

3.

What agencies influence
the decisions it makes?

what

prestige

your

in

this

agency does and

The degree of centrality an organization has in the resource a llo cat ion
system of a local network should be reflected in the proportion of al l
choices made in any of these influence dimensions
that o r g a n i z a t i o n .
influence

S i n c e the t h ree q u e s t i o n s

differently,

however,

address

the i s s u e of

it is unl i k e l y various agencies' pro­

p o r t i o n s w i l l be the s a m e on each.
strength, however,

that are directed at

T h is d i f f e r e n c e can be u s e d as a

by combining the three into a single index.

Preliminary analysis showed that,

for any given question,

using 5% as

the criterion leve l provided a usable result: in a l l cities the number
of o r g a n i z a t i o n s m e e t i n g that c r i t e r i o n was at leas t two and at m o s t
eight on each dimension.

A clo se examination of cases showed that many

organizations showed up as influential on two dimensions,
on three;

that a handful

but very few

of organizations barely meeting the criterion

on one dimension received almost no choices on the other two;

and that

a few organizations almost but not quite met the criterion on a l l three

103
d ime ns i o n s .

The c o n s t r u c t e d m e a s u r e was d e s i g n e d to take a l l

t h ese

f a c t s Into accoun t: a n o r g a n i z a t i o n w a s d e f i n e d to be c e n t r a l if the
sum of its proportions

of

choices

received

across

the

three questions

e x c e e d e d 10%.

Next

it was necessary to construct a measure of ove r a l l centralization

at the c i t y l e v e l .

I d e a l l y such a var i a b l e would have a sufficient

ra n g e of v a l u e s that the t w e l v e c i t i e s w o u l d e a c h h a v e a d i f f e r e n t
value.

The number of organizations defined as central (as given above)

proved much
ring.

less

than ideal,

An alternative,

tion in a network is

with only eight different val u e s occur­

related way

to examine

to approach measuring

centraliza­

the number of organizations necessary

to a c c u m u l a t e a c e r t a i n p e r c e n t of the c h o i c e s m ad e in r e s p o n s e to a
give n question.

This measure also has the value

that it reflects

the

a c t u a l n u m b e r of c e n t e r s of power, r a t h e r than the p r o p o r t i o n those
centers are of the total

number of organizations.

Within the range of

network size in our cities (38 to 66), we assume the absolute number of
c e n t e r s to be m u c h m o r e c r u c i a l

than the p r o p o r t i o n they are of a l l

organizations.

T h e m e a s u r e c o n s t r u c t e d w a s the sum of the n u m b e r s of o r g a n i z a t i o n s
n e e d e d to a c c u m u l a t e 50% of the c h o i c e s r e c e i v e d in r e s p o n s e
three questions separately.

The resulting

to the

values ranged from 4 to 25,

and there were 10 different valu es among the 12 cities*

The measures defined provide a way to distinguish influential from noninfluential

organizations,

and

to m e a s u r e

the

overall

level

of

104
concentration of influence

in a city's social

service network.

It is

st il l necessary to define the density and multiplexity measures for our
networks.
basis

There are four dimensions of interaction that can serve as a

for these measures.

They are represented by the following

five

questions:

W i t h w h i c h a g e n c i e s d o e s yours exchange opinions,
information, and ideas?
With which agencies does yours informal cooperative
relationships?
With which agencies does yours have formal cooper­
ative relationships?
Which agencies send people to your agency for ser­
vices?
To which agencies does your agency send people for
services?

In this case our Interest is in actual relationships, not attributions;
so a relationship w i l l not be counted unless it is acknowledged by both
parties.

The e x c e p t i o n to this Is w i t h f o r m a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s : w h e r e

directors of joint programs named p a r t i c i p a n t s ,
assumed

to exist without regard

the r e l a t i o n s h i p was

to responses of the participants.

The

referral of clients from one agency to another was assumed to occur if
the one reported receiving and the other reported sending.

The d e n s i t y of r e l a t i o n s h i p s in a n e t w o r k is s i m p l y the n u m b e r that
occur divided by the number that can occur.
ties (like exchange of information,
and formal
equal

cooperative

In the case of reciprocal

informal cooperative relationships,

relationships),

the number of possible

ties is

to (N x (N-l))/2, where N Is the number of organizations.

In the

105
case of asymmetric ties, (like the referral
ization to another),
section,

of clients

from one organ­

the number of possible ties is N x (N-l).

In this

since we are concerned with density of ties among non-central

organizations,

N is

the number of organizations

that did not meet

the

criterion for inclusion In the set of central organizations.

The same set of q u e s t i o n s s e r v e s as the basis for the d e f i n i t i o n of
multiplexity.

For any dyad,

the multi ple xi ty

any of

these:

ships,

and formal cooperative relationships.

problem.

exchange of information,

One the one hand,

score had one

added

for

informal cooperative relation­
Client referral

posed a

to give a full point for exchange in either

direction seemed out of proportion, since organizations sending clients
both ways would

then add

two points to their dyad multiplexity score;

but r e q u i r i n g r e f e r r a l b o t h d i r e c t i o n s In o r d e r to add to the scor e
se em e d u n d u l y r e s t r i c t i v e .

Referral

in e i t h e r direct io n, t h e n was

counted as half a point, so that referral in both would count as a full
point.

For an entire network, average m u l t i p l e x i t y was defined as the total of
multiplexity scores,

for those dyads with any of the defined relation­

s h i p s , d i v i d e d by the n u m b e r of s u c h dyads.

This d e f i n i t i o n was m a d e

s p e c i f i c a l l y to p r e v e n t c o n f o u n d i n g the d e n s i t y v a r i a b l e ( w h i c h is
concerned with

the actual

existence of a

link) with the mu lti plexity

variable (which is concerned with the content of the link).

3.

Specific Hypotheses

The more influential organizations a non-influential organization
is r e l a t e d to, on a n y or a l l
below,

three d i m e n s i o n s p e c i f i e d

the more relations it w i l l have with other non-inf luential

organizations on all
—
—
—

of the

three dimensions.

exchange of opinions information, and ideas
informal cooperative relationships
formal cooperative relationships

The less c o n c e n t r a t e d the s t u c t u r e of i n f l u e n c e is in a s o c i a l
services network,

as measured by the sum of the numbers of organ­

iza t i o n s n e c e s s a r y to a c c u m u l a t e 50% of the c h o i c e s m a d e in r e ­
sp o n s e to the thre e q u e s t i o n s l i s t e d be low , the g r e a t e r w i l l be
the density of relationships

among non-influential

organizations

on the three dimensions listed in hypothesis 1 above.
—
—

W hat a g e n c i e s h a v e the m o s t p r e s t i g e ?
W h a t a g e n c i e s h a v e the m o s t i n f l u e n c e o v e r s o c i a l s e r v i c e
decisions?
W h a t a g e n c i e s i n f l u e n c e w ha t y our a g e n c y d o e s and the
decisions it makes?

—

The

less concentrated

the

s t r u c t u r e of i n f l u e n c e

service network, as defined in hypothesis 2 above,

in a s o c i a l

the lower w ill

be the average mult ipl ex ity of those relationships that exist in
the network, where m u l t i p l e x i t y is defined over the following four
dimensions:
—
—
—
—

exchange of opinions information, and ideas;
informal cooperative relationships;
formal cooperative relationships;
referral of clients.

107

F.

The Effect of the Local Environment on the
Local Social Service Delivery Network

1.

The data collected

Theoretical Explication

for this

project contain no direct measures of the

degree of integration of the various metropolitan areas,
m e n t to be f o l l o w e d m u s t be ind ire ct .
important
cated

demographic

in the earlier

preconditions
research:

M e a s u r e s are p r e s e n t of some

of metropolitan

average

so the argu­

integration

indi­

socioeonomlc status of inhabi­

tants, e c o n o m i c d i s p e r s i o n , l e v e l of i n - m i g r a t i o n , and d i v e r s i t y of
ethnic

We

stock.

begin by assuming,

consistent with the research reviewed in Chapter

2, that higher average SES of inhabitants, greater economic dispersion,
a

lesser

proportion

of

in-migration,

and

greater diversity of

ethnic

stock are conditions that lead

to more stable,

politan

n e t w o r k s with m u l t i p l e centers of power.

interorganizational

We next assume that the condition of the social
reflect

the condition of

the

better connected metro­

services network w il l

larger metropolitan network:

that w e l l -

connected social services networks with m u l ti ple centers of power w ill
be found in similar metropolitan networks, and
connected social
tions w i l l

service networks dominated

that r e l a t i v e l y poorly

by one or a few organiza­

be found in cities with similar networks.

This assumption

requires some explanation.

F o r p u r p o s e s of d e l i v e r i n g s o c i a l s e r v i c e s to i n d i v i d u a l s , we h a v e
considered the social service organizations a proper network in its own

108
right; for, by definition, ot her

organizations cannot

form r e l a t i o n ­

s h i p s w i t h the s o c i a l s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s for p u r p o s e s of s e r v i c e
delivery.
however,

For the g a t h e r i n g of f u n d i n g an d the s e t t i n g of p o l i c i e s ,

the social service organizations are c lo s e l y tied to a w h ole

r a n g e of o r g a n i z a t i o n s of o t h e r sorts.
from organizational

campaigns

M u c h U n i t e d W a y m o n e y comes

carried out by large employers.

Public

f u n d i n g comes f r o m s e v e r a l l a y e r s of g o v e r n m e n t s and is a f f e c t e d by
lobbying on behalf of a wide range of organizational interests.
extent that there are m u l t i p l e
the m e t r o p o l i t a n n e t w o r k ,
opportunities

to build

To the

power centers (sources of resources)

social

in

s e r v i c e s agencies w i l l have better

power and resource bases independent of others.

The same forces operating to link organizations g e n e r a l l y in the larger
network will

link them within any subnet as well.

In g e n e r a l ,

then,

preconditions
work,

the b a s i c h y p o t h e s i s here is that the b e t t e r the

for an integrated

the better integrated

in the sense of its o v e r a l l
centers

metropolitan

the social

interorganizational

services network w i l l

be,

net­
both

l e v e l of c o n n e c t i o n and in the n u m b e r of

of power.

2.

The Data and Method of Analysis

The dependent variable for this section is the concentration of in flu­
ence in the social services network.

The measure for the varia ble w i l l

be the one d e s c r i b e d in s e c t i o n D, w h i c h c o m b i n e s i n f o r m a t i o n a bout
a g e n c y head
sions.

perceptions

of i n f l u e n t i a l organizations on three dimen­

109
There are

four independent

variables:

population

turnover,

degree

of

economic dispersion, ethnic diversity, and average socioeconomic status
of residents.

Population turnover is measured by the proportion of the

1970 p o p u l a t i o n of e a c h c o u n t y c o n t a i n i n g one of the c i t i e s s t u d i e d
that migrated into the county between
of in-migration are considered

1965 and 1970.

to generate

High proportions

instability in a met r o p o l ­

itan n et w o r k , but o u t - m i g r a t i o n is not (A i k e n and A l f o r d , 1970a), so
actual

in-migration rather than net migration is the measure used.

The m e a s u r e of e c o n o m i c d i s p e r s i o n is the n u m b e r of e c o n o m i c o r g a n ­
izations

in the

county w i t h

100 or m o r e e m p l o y e e s ,

which measures

dispersion in the sense of the number of centers of power.

It assumes

an absolute rather than a re l a t i v e interpretation of power;

the latter

would be better measured by the Gini coefficient of organization

size.

A Gini coefficient, however, woul d equate cities with only small organ­
izations except for a handful of larger ones and cities with many large
organizations but a handful

of v ery large ones.

It is our contention

that the s m a l l city w o u l d h a v e a t r e m e n d o u s c o n c e n t r a t i o n of p o wer
s i n c e o n l y a few o r g a n i z a t i o n s w o u l d be lar g e e n o u g h to s e r v e as a
resource base; whereas in the second city, although a few organizations
might have

disproportionate

power,

there w ould be many organizations

large enough to serve as a resource base.

Ethnic

heterogeneity is measured

by

the percent

of the non-black pop­

u l a t i o n w i t h b o t h p a r e n t s b o r n in the U n i t e d S t a t e s —
complement of heterogeneity.

a c t u a l l y the

The proportion of Hispanic population in

e a c h city was q u i t e s m a l l , a nd s h o u l d c o n t a i n a l a rg e p r o p o r t i o n of

110
persons with parents born outside
constructing

the U. S., and so was not u s e d

in

this measure.

T he m e a s u r e of s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s is an index based on w o r k d o n e by
B e r r y (1972).

In his f a c t o r a n a l y t i c s t u d y of U.S. cities,

tained a strong factor that he
12 v a r i a b l e s (p. 22).

he o b ­

labeled socioeconomic status containing

S e v e n of thes e v a r i a b l e s are i d e n t i c a l

to or

n ear l y the same as the asterisked variables in Table 3F-1 below,

taken

from the data gathered for this project.

TABLE 3F-1
Variable Loadings on SES Factor

Variable

Loading of
equivalent
variable in
Berry (p.22)

First
stage
loading

Second
stage
loading

Third
stage
loading

Fourth
stage
loading

0.998

0.999

0.990

0.994

0.805

*% of HS graduates
0.950
in over-25 pop.
*% of families
-0.759
with annual
income < $3000
per capita value
0.870
of real property
♦median family
0.839
income
*% of families
0.799
with annual
income > $10000
*% of employed that
0.841
are white-collar
% of employed that
0.929
are prof-tech
♦percent of over-16
0.620
p o p . employed
ratio of suburban
-0.566
to central city
per capita income
per capita value of
0.201
all bank deposits

0.948

0.929

0.938

0.834

-0.762

-0.778

-0.747

-0.747

0.865

0.844

0.851

0.844

0.861

0.860

0.876

0.801

0.819

0.814

0.897

0.841

0.834

0.833

0.783

0.935

0.929

0.945

0.617

0.638

-0.514

—

■

*median education

—

— —

—

—

—

-0.553

j

j

. i_ i

■

■

■

■

■

Ill
To obtain an SES index, all

variables in Table 3F-1 were forced into a

single

f a c t o r du r i n g a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s ,

lowest

l o a d i n g was dropp ed.

This

and

the v a r i a b l e w i t h the

p r o c e s s was r e p e a t e d u n t i l

each

remaining variable had at least half its variance accounted for by the
f a c t o r ( l o a d i n g g r e a t e r than 0.707).

The r e s u l t s of the steps, and a

comparison with Berry's results, are shown in the table.
last step,
factor

Following the

factor scores were prepared for each city by m ult ip lyi ng the

l o a d i n g of e a c h v a r i a b l e

for the variable,

times that city's standardized score

and summing the products (Nie et al.,

1975,

pp. 487-

489).

If the four

independent

variables

a d e q u a t e l y measure the underlying

c o n c e p t s t h e y r e p r e s e n t , and if the c o n c l u s i o n s d r a w n from e a r l i e r
research are correct,

then a m u l t i p l e regression using the four varia­

b l e s s h o u l d pr e d i c t e a c h d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e q u i t e w e l l .

With only

twe lv e cases, it w i l l require a large m u l t i p l e R to obtain a probabil­
it y

less

than

or e q u a l

to 0.05;

that

criterion will

serve

as

an

adequate test of the theoretical construction.

3.

Specific Hypothesis

In a m u l t i p l e regression of the dependent variable specified b elow on
the

independent

variables

listed

below,

the m u l t i p l e

R will

statistically significant.
Independent variables (all
containing the city):
a.
b.

variables refer to the county

n u m b e r of i n - m i g r a n t s , 1965-70, d i v i d e d by 1970
population;
n u m b e r of e c o n o m i c o r g a n i z a t i o n s e m p l o y i n g 100 or
more persons;

be

112
c.

d.

1970 population minus black population minus persons
with either parent born outside the U. S., divided by
the total 1970 population;
SES factor score constructed as detailed above.

Dependent variable:
The sura of the numbers of organizations necessary to
a c c u m u l a t e 50% of the r e s p o n s e s to the que st ion s:
,fWhat agencies h a ve influence over what your agency
does and the decisions it makes"; "What agencies have
the most influence o v e r social service decisions in
this community"; an d "Wha t a g e n c i e s h a v e the m os t
prestige?"

G.

The Effect of the Nonlocal Environment on the
Local Social Services Delivery Network

1.

As

in s e c t i o n F,

Theoretical Explication

the a r g u m e n t h e r e m u s t

be m a d e

in m u l t i p l e

step s

because no data on metropolitan networks were collected in the study on
which this dissertation is based;
to test predictions about
the l o c a l e n v i r o n m e n t .
analysis, however,

it is therefore not possible directly

the effect of the extralocal

environment

on

A c h a i n of r e a s o n i n g across three l e v e l s of

l e ads to the c o n c l u s i o n that the e f f e c t s of the

extralocal environment on the local metropolitan area will have conse­
quences for the social services network in that metropolitan area;
this chain of reasoning provides a hypothesis

Based on the research cited,

and

to test.

we assume (1) that the environment of the

United States is r e l a t i v e l y decentralized with respect to its relation
to l o c a l m e t r o p o l i t a n e n v i r o n m e n t s ;
contact a metropolitan area has with

and (2) that the m o r e p o i n t s of
the extralocal

environment,

the

113
more decentralized the o v e r a l l interorganlzatlonal network In the local
metropolitan area w i l l

be.

Since we have already predicted that less

c o n c e n t r a t i o n of p o w er in o v e r a l l n e t w o r k s w i l be r e f l e c t e d in l ess
concentration of influence in social service networks, it follows

that

the m o r e po int s of c o n t a c t b e t w e e n the e x t r a l o c a l e n v i r o n m e n t an d a
metropolitan interorganlzatlonal

ne t w o r k , the less concentrated the

influence structure of the social services network w i l l be.
ly,

Similar­

since we expect a strong negative relationship between the concen­

tration of influence and the density of interaction in social

service

n e t w o r k s , m o r e p oi n t s of c o n t a c t w i t h the n a t i o n a l s y s t e m s h o u l d be
positively related to interaction density.

2.

Data and Method of Analysis

There are two measures of the independent variable in the data c o l l e c t ­
ed for this study:

the n u m b e r of v o l u n t a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i t h their

h e a d q u a r t e r s in the city, and the n u m b e r of F o r t u n e
o r g a n i z a t i o n s in the city.

1000 i n d u s t r i a l

B e c a u s e none of the cit i e s s t u d i e d had a

large number of either, a single independent measure, formed by summing
the two, has been constructed.

There are

two types of dependent variables.

The first is the concen­

tration of influence in the local social services network.

The measure

of concentration described in section D and used there and in section E
w i l l be u s e d h e r e as w e l l .
sures along
informal

The sec o n d type is a set of d e n s i t y m e a ­

the same dimensions as used

cooperative relationships,

the union of those three dimensions,

in section E:

formal

cooperative

communication,
relationships,

and the referral of clients.

The

114

earlier measures,

however,

were restricted to links among non-inf luen-

t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s ; in this p a r t of the a n a l y s i s , the d e n s i t i e s i n ­
cluding both Influential and non-influential organizations w i l l
measures.

As before,

existence

be the

of a link between agencies Is assumed

o nly if both agencies reported it.

3. Specific Hypothesis

The zero-order correlations between

the sum of

volu nta ry organizations with headquarters

the number of national

in a city and the number of

Fortune 1000 industrials in that city, and the following list of depen­
dent measures, w i l l have the signs Indicated and w i l l be statistically
significant:
(1)

the concentration of influence in the social services network
(negative);

(2)

the d e n s i t y
(positive);

(3)

the density of informal
(positive);

cooperative

ties among organizations

(4)

the d e n s i t y of f o r m a l
(positive);

cooperative

ties among organizations

(5)

the density of the union of communication, informal cooper­
a t i v e , an d f o r m a l c o o p e r a t i v e ties a m o n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s
(positive);

(6)

the d e n s i t y
(positive).

of

of

communication

client

ties

referral

a m o ng

among

organizations

organizations

Chapter 4
FINDINGS

A.

The Interaction of Organizational Characteristics
and Dyad Formation

In g eneral, the expected findings in this section are:
(1)

a strong

positive relationship between size and complexity;

(2)

a strong

positive relationship between size and IOR;

(3)

a strong

positive relationship between complexity and IOR;

(4)

no

relationshipbetween

innovation

and

any

other

variable

w h e n size, c o m p l e x i t y and IOR are c o n t r o l l e d , nor b e t w e e n i n n o ­
vation and size or innovation and complexity if the other v a r ia ble
and IOR are controlled;
(5)

no relationship between IOR and any Internal organizational varia­
bles when size and complexity are controlled.

The

specific

hypotheses w i l l

be repeated one at a time,

and

the find­

ings relevant to them shown and discussed Immediately afterward.

I.

(a)

For all

The Relationship of Size to Complexity

organizations,

agency size will

have a significant

posi­

tive zero-order Pearson correlation with complexity.
(b)

When partial correlation is used to control
and of
tion,

agency centralization,
and efficiency,

agency

for the effects of IOR

formalization,
size w i l l

still

positive correlation with agency complexity.
115

internal

communica­

have a significant

(c)

P o s i t i v e z e r o - o r d e r an d p a r t i a l

c o r r e l a t i o n s (as s p e c i f i e d in

parts (a) and (b) above) w i l l occur in the organization sets of at
least ten of the twelve cities studied.

T a b l e 4A-1 s u m m a r i z e s
correlation

values of

the r e s u l t s f r o m the d a t a a n a l y s i s .
the organization

sets in the

For the

individual

cities

see Table C-l in Appendix C.

TABLE 4A-1
The Relationship of Size to Complexity
zero-order correlation
and significance
for all cases*

0.4865
p < 0.001

number of cities with
positive correlations**

11
p = 0.003

partial correlation
and significance
for all cases*

0.4281
p < 0.001

number of cities with positive
partial correlations**

P = 0.003

*
**

11

N of organizations = 272
N of cities = 12

A l l correlations are based on those organizations for which all
variables are present.
A l l probabilities are one-tailed.

As Tabl e 4A-1 shows,

the data o v e r w h elm ing ly confirm earlier findings

that organization size and complexity are strongly related.

The o v e r ­

a l l finding is supported in almost every city, and the level of statis­
tical significance is very high.

Controlling for every other variable

used

the proportion of variance that size

in the study bar ely affects

and complexity account for in each other.

117
2.

(a)

For all

The Relationship of Size to IOR Formation

organizations,

agency size will have a significant posi­

tive zero-order Pearson correlation with IOR.
(b)

W h e n par t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n is used to c o n t r o l for the eff ect s of
agency complexity, centralization, formalization, internal commun­
ication, and efficiency, agency size w ill still have a significant
positive correlation with IOR.

(c)

Postive zero-order and partial correlations (as specified in parts
(a) and (b) above) will occur In the organization sets of at least
10 of the 12 cities studied.

T a b l e 4A-2 s u m m ar iz es the r e s u l t s from the data analysis.
correlation values

of the organization

sets in the

individual

For the
cities

see Table C-2 in Appendix C.

TABLE 4A-2
The Relationship of Size to IOR Formation

zero-order correlation
and significance
for all cases*

0.2847
p < 0.001

number of cities with
positive correlations**

p =» 0.003

partial correlation
and significance
for all cases*

0.2426
p < 0.001

number of cities with positive
partial correlations**

p = 0.003

*
**

11

U

N of organizations = 272
N of cities = 12

A l l correlations are based on those organizations for which all
variables are present.
All probabilities are one-tailed.

118
Overall
as

the hypothesis is strongly supported, although not as strongly

the previous one.

The correlations are smaller and the proportion

of reduction in explained variance in the parital correlation is great­
er here than for the first hy pothesis.

N o n e t h e l e s s , the s t a t i s t i c a l

significance of every result is far beyond 0.05.

3.

(a)

For all

The Relationship of Complexity to IOR Formation

organizations,

agency complexity will

have a significant

positive zero-order Pearson correlation with IOR.
(b)

When p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n is used to c o n t r o l for the ef f e c t s of
a g e n c y size, c e n t r a l i z a t i o n ,

formalization, internal communica­

tion, and efficiency, agency complexity will still have a signif­
icant positive correlation with IOR.
(c)

P o s i t i v e z e r o - o r d e r and p a r t i a l

c o r r e l a t i o n s (as s p e c i f i e d in

parts (a) and (b) above) w i l l occur in the organization sets of at
least ten of the twelve cities studied.

T a b l e 4A-3 su m m a r i z e s the r e s u l t s
correlation values

from the data analysis.

of the organization sets in the individual

see Table C-3 in Appendix C.

For the
cities

119
TABLE 4A-3
The Relationship of Complexity to IOR Formation
zero-order correlation
and significance
for all cases*

p = 0.007

number of cities with
positive correlations**

p = 0 .1 9 4

partial correlation
and significance
for all cases*

0.0087
p s 0 .4 4 4

number of cities with positive
partial correlations**

3
p «* 0 .0 7 3

*
**

0 .1 4 8 3

8

N of organizations =» 272
N of cities = 12

A l l correlations are based on those organizations for which all
variables are present.
Al l probabilities are one-tailed.
The results are almost un equivocally contrary to prediction.

The over­

all zero-order correlation is statistically significant, but the amount
of variance accounted for is barely above 2%.

The partial correlation

is very close to zero, showing that complexity has practically no pre­
dictive power unshared with other variables; specifically, when size is
controlled, almost no predictive power remains to complexity.

The num­

ber of cities with positive zero-order correlations is not statistical­
ly significant;

most of the the cities have negative partial correla­

tions, and none of them has a significant positive partial correlation.

The h y p o t h e s i s is t h e r ef ore d i s con fi rme d.
predictive

power w h e n size

is c o n t r o l l e d .

aspect of the research of Aiken and Hage,

C o m p l e x i t y has a l m o s t no
T hese r es u l t s c a l l

Paulson,

one

and Klonglan et al.

into s erious question: a l l of these s tu d i e s used c o m p l e x i t y but not
size as an independent variable.

The repeated finding of a relation­

ship b e t w e e n c o m p l e x i t y and IO R f o r m a t i o n must, in the light of the

120
r e s u l t s here,

be i n t e r p r e t e d as a c o n s e q u e n c e of the r e l a t i o n s h i p

between size and IOR formation.

4.

The Relationship of Innovation to Other Variables

The basic prediction is that no internal organizational variable will
correlate with

innovation if size,

complexity,

and

IOR formation are

controlled; and that none of those three variables will correlate with
innovation if the other two are controlled.

fliven as a d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e a g e n c y i n n o v a t i o n , and g i v e n as
independent variables

the size,

complexity,

and IOR count of the

ag e n c y (set 1); and the c e n t r a l i z a t i o n , i n t e r n a l c om mun ic ati on,
formalization,
(a)

and efficiency of the agency (set 2):

when partial

correlation is used

to control

for the effects

of the other variables in set 1, each variable in set 1 w i ll
fail to h a v e a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e

c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the

dependent variable;
(b)

w h e n p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n is u sed to c o n t r o l the eff e c t s of
the v a r i a b l e s in set I, each of the v a r i a b l e s in set 2 w i l l
fail

to h a v e a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the

dependent variable;
(c)

the partial correlations specified in (a) and (b) above,
examined separately for

the twelve cities

studied,

when

will

in

each case not be s i g n i f i c a n t l y m o r e o ften of one sign than
the other.

121
The z e r o - l e v e l c o r r e l a t i o n s s u g g e s t d e f i n i t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s of some
v a r i a b l e s with i n n o v a t i o n , th o u g h none are v e r y strong.

In k eep ing

with previous findings, there is a statistically significant zero-order
r e s u l t for IOR formation. C o m p l e x i t y a l s o shows a s i g n i f i c a n t zeroorder result, and internal communcatlon comes close.

The summaries of

results

Correlations for

for each variable are given in Table 4A-4.

the o r g a n i z a t i o n sets in e a c h c i t y are g i v e n in T a b l e C4-1 to C4-7 in
Ap p e n d i x C.

TABLE 4A-4
The Relationships of Innovation to Other Variables
zero-order
correl.*
(signif.)

partial
correl.*
(signif.)

size

0.0941
(p=0.122)

0.0067
(p=0.914)

7
(p=0.774)

7
(p=*0.774)

complexity

0.1197
(p=0.048)

0.0842
(p=0.168)

10
(p=0.039)

6
(p=l.000)

IOR

0.1570
(p=0.010)

0.1360
(p=0.026)

9
(p=0.146)

8
(p=0.388)

centralization

-0.0713
(p=0.242)

-0.0574
(p=0.348)

5
(p=0.774)

5
(p=0.774)

internal
communication

0.1055
(p=0.082)

0.0985
(p=0.106)

10
(p=0.039)

9
(p=0.146)

formalization

0.0107
(p=0.862)

0.0001
(p=0.998)

7
(p=0.774)

7
(p=0.774)

efficiency

0.0632
(p=0.298)

0.0313
(p=0.610)

5
(p=0.774)

4
(p=0.388)

Variable

*
**

n of cities**
with positive
zero-order cor.
(signif.)

n of cities**
with positive
partials
(signif.)

N of organizations = 272
N of citites => 12
A l l correlations are based on those organizations for which all
variables are present. A l l probabilities are two-tailed.

122
The resul ts , wi th the e x c e p t i o n of IOR, c o n f o r m to the predictions.
The partial

correlation for IOR with innovation remains significant at

the 0.05 l e v e l ; m o r e o v e r , o n l y one of the nine cities with p o s i t i v e
zero-order correlations between IOR and innovation had a negative par­
tial. Although the number of cities with positive partial correlations
b e t w e e n IOR and i n n o v a t i o n Is not s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.05 l e v e l , the
l a c k of change f o l l o w i n g the a p p l i c a t i o n of c o n t r o l s supp ort s
still-significant overall partial correlation.

the

Although the amount of

variance accounted for Is less than 3%, there clearly is a relationship
between innovation and IOR formation

that cannot be explained away by

size and complexity.

Aside from that one exception, the predicted absence of relationship is
obvi ous .

It is impo rta nt

variable external

to note that the one e x c e p t i o n (IOR)

to the organization;

retains a significant relationship

no organization-level

is a

variable

to innovation (by either criterion)

after controls are In place.

5.

The Relationship between IOR Formation
and Internal Organizational Variables

The basic prediction is that any relationship between IOR formation and
the internal workings of an organization is an artifact of the size and
c o m p l e x i t y of the o r g a ni za tio n, and w i l l
variables are controlled.

d i s a p p e a r w h e n those two

The specific predications are given below:

123
Given as

dependent variables

the centralization,

formalization,

internal communication and efficiency of an agency, as an indepen­
dent variable the IOR count of

the agency, and ascontrol varia­

bles the complexity and size of

the agency:

(a)

is used to c o n t r o l the e ff e c t s of

w h e n pa r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n

the control variables, the independent variable will fail
have a significant positive

to

c o r r e l a t i o n w it h each of the

dependent variables;
(b)

the partial

correlations

specified in (a) above,

when exam­

ined s e p a r a t e l y for the o r g a n i z a t i o n s sets of the t w e l v e
cities studied,

will

in each case not be significantly more

often of one sign than the other.

S u m m a r i e s of the r e s u l t s for e a c h v a r i a b l e are g i v e n in T a b l e 4A-5.
The correlations

for the organizations sets in each city are given in

Tables C5-1 to C5-4 in Appendix C.

None of the internal variables even approaches statistical significance
in its zero-order correlation with

IOR formation

—

contrary

v i o u s fin d i n g s for i n t e r n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n and efficiency.

to pre­
Earlier

findings with regard to centralization were not uniformly statistically
signi fi can t;

the r e s u l t s here lead to the c o n c l u s i o n that the true

state of affairs is a lack of relation,
that requires a large sample to detect.

not just a low-level
Finally,

relation

since the measure of

f o r m a l i z a t i o n used here c a r e f u l l y takes a cc o u n t of Morse's d i s t i n c ­
tions,

the absence of a significant result suggests that formalization

in any sense is not related to IOR.

The overall hypothesis that there

124
TABLE 4A-5
The Relationships of IOR to
Internal Organizational Variables

Vs liable

centralization

internal
communication
formalization

efficiency

*
**

zero-order
correl.*
(signif.)

partial
correl.*
(signif.)

0.0142
(pa0.816)

0.0304
(p“ 0.618)

(p=0.774)

(p=0.774)

0.0360
(p=0.584)

0.0058
(p=>0.924)

(p=1.000)

(p=0.774)

0.0100
(p=0.870)

0.0064
(p=0.916)

(p=0.774)

(p=0.774)

0.0709
(p=0.244)

0.0435
(p°0.476)

(p=0.388)

(p=1.000)

n of cities**
with positive
zero-order cor.
(signif.)

n of cities**
with positive
partials
(signif.)

N of organizations =» 272
N of citites =* 12
A l l correlations are based on those organizations for which all
variables are present.
All probabilities are two-tailed.

Is no systematic relationship between internal organizational variables
and IOR is definitely supported.

B. The Development of Dyadic Interaction

The general theoretical expectation for this section is that the vari­
ety and change In the environments of the dyads studied,
their ass umed a d a p t i v e s ys t e m nature,

would

lead

development of multiplexity in dyadic interaction.
thesis to be tested in this section is:

combined with

to i d i o s y n c r a t i c
The specific

hypo­

125
A Guttman scaling procedure applied to these three types of
d y a d i c i n t e r a c t i o n - - e x c h a n g e of I nfo rmation, ideas, and
opinions; informal cooperation; formal joint programs — even
if using the best empirical ordering, w i l l fail to produce a
s c a l e w i t h both a r e p r o d u c i b i l i t y g r e a t e r than 0.9 and a
scalability greater than 0.6.
This failure will occur both
for all dyads in the twelve cities and for the dyads in each
particular city.

T a b l e 4B-1 shows the r e s u l t s of the G u t t m a n S c a l e an alysis.

It is

c l e a r the e x p e c t a t i o n s s p e c if ied by the h y p o t h e s i s are a l l met.

Be­

cause by far the largest number of dyads had no links, and they and the
handful of dyads with all three types of link are by definition consis­
tent with any scaling, the reproducibility is exceptionally high every­
where.

The scalability score depends on those dyads with only one or

two links; and as the table shows, the highest scalability attained was
0.4426 —

far b e l o w the 0.6 l e v e l n o r m a l l y set as a r e q u i r e m e n t for

a d e q u a t e scaling.

(The n e g a t i v e

v a l u e s for scalability result from

instances where the default empirical

ordering,

order of the frequency of their occurrence,

which places

items

in

does not work well because

the p a t t e r n of links among dyads w i t h o n l y one link is i n c o n s i s t e n t
with the pattern of links among dyads with two.)

An e x a m i n a t i o n of c o l u m n s 3 and 4 suppo rts

the s c a l a b i l i t y

scores.

Column three shows the number of dyads with either one or two types of
link.

Column four shows the number and percent of those dyads with one

or two l inks in w h i c h the l inks w e r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the m o st com mon
ordering.

As the p e r c e n t a g e s m a k e c le a r , in no city did an o r d e r i n g

encompass even 2/3 of the dyads with 1 or 2 links.

126
Table 4B-1
Guttman Scalability for Three Types of Links

Unit

all
dyads

N of
dyads

all
dyads
with
1 or 2
links

dyads
with
I or 2
consistent
links

Reproducibility

Scalability

9453

946
(10.0%)

447
(47.3%)

0.9648

0.2227

city
1

666

50
(7.5%)

23
(46.0%)

0.9730

0.1429

city
2

1081

99
(9.2%)

59
(59.6%)

0.9753

0.3651

city
3

703

89
(12.7%)

57
(64.0%)

0.9697

0.3905

city
4

703

92
(13.1%)

46
(50.0%)

0.9564

0.3381

city
5

861

79
(9.2%)

35
(44.3%)

0.9659

0.0737

city
6

946

86
(9.1%)

51
(55.3%)

0.9753

0.4118

ci ty
7

946

109
(11.5%)

61
(56.0%)

0.9662

0.4286

city
8

496

18
(3.6%)

7
(38.9%)

0.9852

-0.2222

city
9

820

75
(9.1%)

32
(42.7%)

0.9650

0.2321

city
10

465

88
(18.9%)

54
(61.4%)

0.9513

0.4426

city
11

946

89
(9.4%)

45
(50.6%)

0.9690

0.3231

city
12

820

72
(8.7%)

27
(37.5%)

0.9634

-0.0345

Ill
The data therefore overwhelmingly
the general

conclusion

support

the specific hypothesis and

that dyad formation among social service agen­

cies does not fol low a consistent pattern.

C.

1.

The Conditioning of Dyadic Relationships
by Network Characteristics

The Effect of Relationships with Influential Organizations

The first h y p o t h e s i s
greater number of

ties

is that n o n - i n f l u e n t i a l
to influential

o r g a n i z a t i o n s with a

organizations will

also have a

greater number of ties to other non-influential organizations.

Specif­

ically:

The more influential organizations a non-influential organi­
zation is r e l a t e d to, on any or a l l of the three d i m e n s i o n
specified below,

the more relations it wi ll have with other

non-influential organizations on all three dimensions.
—
—
—

exchange of opinions, information, and ideas
informal cooperative relationships
formal cooperative relationships

An influential organization is defined to be one that received a total
of ten p e r c e n t a g e points of r e s p o n s e s to three d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n s
about relative influence in a network of social service agencies:
w h i c h o r g a n i z a t i o n s h a v e i n f l u e n c e o v e r your own agency;

(1)

(2) w h i c h

agencies have the most influence over human services decisions in this
co mmu ni ty;
prestige.

and (3) w h i c h a g e n c i e s

in

this

community have

the m o st

128
Be c a u s e ag e n c i e s w it h o u t di re ct s e r v i c e
viewed,

the United Way offices,

mental

to c l i e n t s were not i n t e r ­

health boards,

Area Offices on

Aging, and h e a l t h p l a n n i n g ag e n c i e s were not amon g the i n t e r v i e w e d
agencies;

and yet

these organizations are 4 of the 5 most influential

(averaged across all cities) by the measure used here.

Since the types

of linkages used to test the hypothesis are constructed from reciprocal
mentions,

they are therefore limited

to the interviewed

agencies;

and

the n u m b e r of i n t e r v i e w e d i n f l u e n t i a l a g e n c i e s is so s m a l l in some
cities as to reduce variability drastically in the number of possible
relationships
fewer

than five

dropped

to i n f l u e n t i a l
influential

organizations.

organizations

from this part of the analysis.

were

The six cities in which
interviewed

have

been

In addition, since the number

of interviewed influential agencies differs in most cities (4 different
numbers

in the six cit ies a n a l yz ed) ,

and

since the number of non-

i n f l u e n t l a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s v a r i e s in e v e r y city, the res u l t s are not
combined —

each city is analyzed as a separate case.

There are four separate measures of

ties:

(1) exchange of information,

opinions, an d ideas (COMM); (2) I n f o r m a l c o o p e r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s
(INF);

(3) f o r m a l l y n e g o t i a t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s (FORMAL);

union of

the three previous sets (UNION).

and (4)

the

There are therefore 16 sets

of correlations: the correlations between each type of link with influ­
ential

agencies and each

type

of

link

with non-inf luential

agencies.

The hypothesis Is tested by comparing the number of positive and nega­
tive correlations.
relatively

If the h y p o t h e s i s is true,

few negative correlations.

then there s h o u l d be

Table 4C-1 shows

positive correlations for each comparison.

the count of

129
TABLE 4C-1
Positive Correlations between Ties to Influentials
and Ties to Non-Inf luential s
for Non-influential Organizations
COMM ties
INF ties FORMAL ties UNION of
to nonto nonto nonties to noninfluential influential influential influential
COMM ties to
influentials

6

5

3

5

INF ties to
influentials

4

6

5

6

FORMAL ties to
influentials

2

2

6

6

UNION of ties to
influentials

4

6

5

6

N of cities = 6

C e r t a i n p a t t e r n s are
diagonal

i m m e d i a t e l y n o t i c e a b l e in the table:

cells are positive for every city;

(1) the

(2) the number of ties of

any sort to i n f l u e n t i a l s is p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to the nu m b e r in the
union of ties to non-inf luential s in all

but one case;

(3) the number

in the u n i o n of ties to i n f l u e n t i a l s is p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to each
specific type of tie in more than half the cities*

On the o t h e r hand, the r e l a t i o n s h i p s are not a l t o g e t h e r general: in
none of the six off-diagonal cells involving the three types of inter­
action is the relationship positive in all six cities, and in only half
these ce lls is the relationship positive in more

than half the cities.

If we hypothesized the absence of a tendency toward the posited pattern
in relationship formation, it would take positive correlations in all
six cities to reject that assumption (Computation Laboratory of Harvard

130
University,
clude

that

1955, p. 403).

There is t h e r e f o r e no basis here to c o n ­

a relationship of one sort with influential

organizations

leads to relationships of other sorts with non-influentials; but clear­
ly relationships of the sorts examined here occur more frequently with
non-influentials if they occur more frequently with influentials.

These results by themselves cannot distinguish the hypothesis proposed
here —

that

influential

ties

to influential

organizations —

organizations

generate

ties

to non-

from a simpler one: that organizations

v a r y in their p r o p e n s i t y to form r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and that those that
tend to form relationships of a particular kind do so indiscriminately
with respect to the influence of their partners.
thesis were true, however,

If this simpler hypo­

one would expect it to be true for influen­

tial organizations also; but that is not the case.

A comparison of the

TABLE 4C-2
Positive Correlations between Ties to Influentials
and Ties to Non-Inf luentials
for Influential Organizations
COMM ties
INF ties FORMAL ties UNION of
to nonto nonto nonties to nonlnfluential influential Influential influential
COMM ties to
influentials
INF ties to
influentials
FORMAL ties to
influentials
UNION of ties to
influentials

N of cities = 6

131
e q u i v a l e n t data for i n f l u e n t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s ( Ta b l e 4C-2) with the
data for non-influential organizations (Table 4C-1) shows a lower level
of relationship in every cell.
statistical

None of the cells in Table 4C-2 reaches

significance.

Apparently, then, although the data are not as favorable as could have
be e n hoped for, there is e v i d e n c e for a pro cess that m a t c h e s the d e s ­
cription given —

that ties to influential organizations by non-influ-

entials tend to produce more ties to non-inf luentials as well;

but the

same process does not seem to occur for influentials.

2.

The Relationship of Influence Concentration to the
Formation of Organizational Dyadic Relationships

The se con d h y p o t h e s i s is that w h e n i n f l u e n c e is c o n c e n t r a t e d in an
interorganlzatlonal network, it tends to inhibit the formation of dyads
—

particularly among non-influential organizations.

The

les s

concentrated

the s t u c t u r e

of

Specifically:

influence

is in a

social s e r v i c e s network, as m e a s u r e d by the sum of the n u m ­
bers

of

organizationsnecessary

choices made in response
the greater w i l l
influential
hypothesis
—

to a c c u m u l a t e 50% of the

to the three questions listed below,

be the density of relationships among non-

organizations on

the three dimensions

listed in

1 above.
What agencies have the most prestige?

—

What agencies have
service decisions?

the most

—

What agencies influence
the decisions it makes?

influence

over social

what your agency does and

132
C o n c e n t r a t i o n of i n f l u e n c e in a c it y is m e a s u r e d by the sum of the
n u m b e r s of o r g a n i z a t i o n s ne ede d to r e ac h 50% of the total c ho ic es on
ea ch of three d i m e n s i o n s

li st e d in the hypoth esi s.

val ues produce a reasonable variable:

The r e s u l t i n g

the range of values is from four

to twenty-five, and there are ten values out of the twelve cities.

The

sum d e s c r i b e d is a c t u a l l y the o p p o s i t e of c o n c e n t r a t i o n of power: in
ord er to get a di rec t r a t h e r than an i n v e r s e measur e, e a c h v a l u e has
been subtracted

from 26 (the

largest value)

values range from 1 (least concentrated)

To

carry out

so that the r e s u l t i n g

to 22 (most concentrated).

the analysis for this section,

the variable just defined

was with the densities of five measures of interaction:

(1) exchange of

information, ideas, and opinions (COMM); (2) informal cooperative rela­
t i o ns hip s (INF); (3) f o r m a l l y n e g o t i a t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s (FORMAL);
the union of

these

three (UNION);

and (5) referral

(4)

of clients (REFER).

R e f e r r a l of c l i e n t s was not c o m b i n e d with the othe rs b ecause it was
measured asymmetrically:

referral was counted in either direction sepa­

rately, whereas the other three type of relationships were counted only
when a link was acknowledged in both directions.

The results are shown

in Table 4C-3.

TABLE 4C-3
C o r r e l a t i o n s of I n f l u e n c e C o n c e n t r a t i o n
with D en s i t y of Dyad F o r m a t i o n
among Non-Influential Organizations

variable

correlation
significance

COMM

-.5861
.023

INF

-.6183
.016

FORMAL

UNION

REFER

-.5493

-.6299

-.4692

.014

.062

.032

133
The results strongly support the hypothesis.

All the correlations are

strongly negative, as predicted, and the probability of all but one is
less than 0.0S

3.

The Relationship of Influence Concentration
to Dyadic Multiplexity

The hypothesis tested here is that in networks with greater concentra­
tion of influence,

organizations will

focus more energy on their most

important relationships; whereas in networks with less concentration of
influence,

relational

mult ipl e relations.

control

will

more commonly be obtained

through

Specifically:

The less concentrated the structure of influence in a social
service network,

as defined in hypothesis 2 above,

the lower

w i l l be the average multiplexity of those relationships that
exist in the network,

where multiplexity is defined over the

following four dimensions:
—
—
—
—

exchange of opinions, information, and ideas;
informal cooperative relationships;
formal cooperative relationships;
referral of clients.

The c o n c e n t r a t i o n
section 2.

of I n f l u e n c e

In a n e t w o r k is de f i n e d here as in

The measure of multiplexity Is the average number of ties

(among four possible) In those dyads for which there is any tie at all.
E x c h a n g e of in for m a t i o n , ideas, and opinions; I n f o r m a l
relationships;

cooperative

and formal cooperative relationships each counted as 1.

Referral of clients in either direction counted as 0.5; if clients were
referred in both directions,
to the total.

then,

client referral could contribute 1

134
The correlation has been predicted

to be positive:

we have concluded

e a r l i e r that in c r e a s e d c o n c e n t r a t i o n of influence is associated with
increased multiplexity of relationships.
ever,

is

strongly negative,

-0.7541,

The actual correlation,
with probability

0.002.

how­
The

results clearly refute the hypothesis proposed here, supporting instead
the c o n t e n d i n g n o t i o n that r e l a t i o n s h i p s once formed tend to be pro­
tected by the development of m u l t i p l e x i t y :

for g r e a t e r m u l t i p l e x i t y

accompanies the greater tendency to build dyadic relationships that is
associated with lesser concentration of influence.

D.

The g e n e r a l

The Effect of the Local Environment
on the Social Service Network.

t h e o r e t i c a l e x p e c t a t i o n for this s ec tio n was that in a

m e t r o p o l i t a n area, co nd it i o n s that foster a stable, w e l l - c o n n e c t e d
network of interorganizational relations with mul t i p l e centers of power
throughout the area will lead to networks among social service agencies
that
ence.

are also

better

connected and show less

concentration of influ­

The specific hypothesis is given below:

In a mult ip le regression of the dependent variable specified
b e l o w on the Independent variables listed below, the multiple
R will be statistically significant.

I n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s (all v a r i a b l e s
containing the city):
a.

number of ln-migrants,
tion;

refer to the county

1965-70, divided by 1970 popula­

135
b.

number of economic organizations
persons in 1966;

employing

100

or more

c.

1970 p o p u l a t i o n m i n u s b l a c k p o p u l a t i o n m i n u s persons
with either parent born o u t s i d e the U. S., d i v i d e d by
the total 1970 population;

d.

SES factor score.

Dependent variable:
The sum of the n um b e r s of o r g a n i z a t i o n s n e c e s s a r y to
accumulate 50% of the responses to the questions: "What
agencies have influence over what your agency does and
the decisions you make?"; "What agencies have the most
influence over social services decisions in this com­
munity?"; "What agencies have the most prestige?"

The basic statistics of the regression are shown in table 4D-1.

Table 4D-1
Regression of Population Turnover, Economic Dispersion,
Ethnic Heterogeneity, and SES
on Influence Concentration in Social Service Networks

Multiple R

0.189

overall F

Multiple R 2

0.036

significance

variable

F to enter
or remove

slgnif.

0.065
0.990

simple r

Beta

ethnic heterogeneity

0.178

.682

-0.132

0.091

in-migration

0.032

.862

-0.107

-0.263

socioeconomic status

0.061

.811

0.036

0.193

number of large firms

0.054

.823

0.029

-0.093

The results make obvious that the proposed hypothesis is overwhelmingly
rejected.

None of the independent variables has a significant F at its

136
e n t r y into the equation.

The o v e r a l l m u l t i p l e R is so s m a l l that it

w o u l d be v e r y u n l i k e l y to o b t a i n in a set of r a n d o m data.

Moreover,

for o n l y one of the v a r i a b l e s , e thn i c h e t e r o g e n e i t y , is the s i m p l e
correlation in the expected direction;

and only for economic disperson

(number of large firms) is the beta weight in the expected direction.

On the p o s s i b i l i t y that this m e a s u r e was s i m p l y a poor one, the den­
sities of the v a r i o u s ties used in the last se c t i o n we re s u bst itu te d
into the regression equation.
to be significant,

In a l l five cases, the multi ple R failed

each individual variable failed

to be significant,

and at least three of the simple correlations and at least two of the
beta weights had signs opposite

Moreover,

c e r t a i n f i nd in gs

to that expected.

from the e ar l i e r studies reviewed proved

unsubstantiated for the cities studied here.

Socioeconomic status was

overwhelmingly and postively correlated with the proportion of in-mi­
g r a t i o n (r= 0.838, p. < 0.001).
icantly,
0.307)

It was n e g a t i v e l y , though not s i g n i f ­

c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the n u m b e r of l a rge

and w i t h ethnic

firms (r= -0.163, p =

h e t e r o g e n e i t y (r = -0.269,

p = 0.199).

The

proportion of in-migration was even more strongly correlated with these
two variables: with number of large firms the correlation was -0.322 (p
= 0.153) and w i t h e t h n i c h e t e r o g e n e i t y it was -0.397 (p = 0.101).

A p p a r e n t l y in these cities in -m igr ati on, w he r e it occurs, is p r e d o m ­
inantly the influx of higher SES persons into the county.

Such persons

would tend to be white and middle class, and they would be more likely
to move to a less ethnically heterogeneous place in the first place and

137
would by their moving make it less so anyway.
negative correlations nowhere resulted

However,

given that the

in a significant F for a vari­

able in any of the regression equations, the whole set of variables has
proven irrelevant

to the c o n c e n t r a t i o n of i n f l u e n c e in the so cia l

services networks in the cities studied.

As e x p l a i n e d e a r l i e r there are two st eps of r e a so nin g lea d i n g to the
single test in this section: (1) that the independent variables direct­
ly affect the concentration of power in the overall interorganizational
network

in a city,

an d (2)

that

the c o n c e n t r a t i o n

of power

in

the

o v e r a l l network w i l l be reflected in the concentration of influence in
the soc ial s e r v i c e s subnetwork.
ficult

to interpret

the failure

The r e s u l t is that it is more d i f ­
to obtain significant results.

It is

p o s s i b l e that the i n d e p e n d e n t m e a s u r e s ch o s e n are not adequate, but
their similarity to measures used in prior research argues against this
interpretation.
ap p r o p r i a t e ;

It is also possible
but

its

performance

against this interpretation.

that the dependent measure is not
as

expected

in s ec t i o n

D arg u e s

It could be argued that the small number

of cases makes the level of significance difficult to meet; but in this
a n a l y s i s the v a l u e of the o v e r a l l
variance accounted for so little

F is so s m a l l

that

and

the negative

the amount of

results cannot so

easily be discounted.

It seems m o s t

likely,

then,

that one of the two steps of reasoning

l e a d i n g to the p r e d i c t i o n is faulty.

Of these,

the first step has

fairly solid grounding in prior research work; so It seems most reason­
able to conclude that the second step of reasoning —

that the concen­

138
tration of power In the overall
will

be r e f l e c t e d

services network —

interorganizational

network in a city

in the c o n c e n t r a t i o n of i n f l u e n c e in its social
is the one that has failed.

Pe rhaps

the basic

structures of social services networks are not particularly affected by
their environments

once they are established.

Although

it seems

un­

l i k e l y that the na t u r e of a s u b n e t w o r k c o u l d a v o i d str ong i n f l u e n c e
f ro m its l a r g e r c o n t e x t d u r i n g the time of its ini t i a l c onstruction;
perhaps

once

in p l a c e its o r i g i n a l

change.

This

interpretation,

works

once

established

are

structure

which suggests

relatively

is m o r e

that social

homeostatic

r e s ist ant to
service net­

in their behavior,

will be taken up at greater length in the concluding chapter.

E.

The

general

of external

The Effect of the Nonlocal Environment on the
Local Social Service Delivery Network

hypothesis

tested in this section is that a larger number

ties to the larger (national) environment w i ll

generate a

le s s c o n c e n t r a t e d p o w e r s t r u c t u r e in a m e t r o p o l i t a n area, and thus a
less

concentrated influence structure and greater density of interac­

tion in its social services network.

Specifically:

The zero-order correlations between the sum of the number of
national

voluntary organizations with headquarters in a city

and the n u m b e r of F o r t u n e 1000 i n d u s t r i a l in that city, and
the following list of dependent measures, w i l l have the signs
indicated and will
(1)

be

statistically

significant:

the c o n c e n t r a t i o n of i n f l u e n c e in the s oc i a l s e r v i c e s
network (negative);

139
(2)

the density of communication ties (COMM)
z ations (positive);

among organi­

(3)

the d e n s i t y of i n f o r m a l c o o p e r a t i v e ties (INF) among
organizations (positive);

(4)

the density of formal cooperative
organizations (positive);

(5)

the d e n s i t y of the u nion of c o m m u n i c a t i o n , i n f o r m a l
cooperative, and formal cooperative ties (UNION) among
organizations (positive);

(6)

the density of client referral (REFER) among organiza­
tions (positive).

ties (FORMAL) among

Since the results reported in section D shoved no relationship between
local

environmental

variables and

the network variables measured,

we

would now expect to find no relationship here; and that is exactly the
result.

The correlation between the number of external connections in

a city and the concentration of Influence in the social service network
is negligibly small and in the opposite direction from that predicted.
None of the correlations with density variables approaches significance
at the 0.05 l e v e l , and four of the f i v e are in the d i r e c t i o n o pposite
to that predicted.

Table 4E-1 shows the specific results.

TABLE 4E-1
Correlations of the Number of External Ties
with Influence Concentration and Interactive Density
in Social Service Networks

variable

Influence
concentration

COMM

correlation

0.040

-0.254

significance

0.451

0.213

INF

FORMAL

-0.122

0.234

0.353

0.232

UNION

REFER

-0.181 -0.113
0.287

0.364

140
As

in s e c t i o n

D,

it is tempting

to try

to e x p l a i n

the

inadequacy of variables or the small number of cases.
ever,

r e s u l t s by

As there, how­

the use of the independent variables in earlier research and the

success of the dependent variables in a lower l e v e l of analysis in this
research argue against blaming
results

the variables;

and

the

persistence of

in the opposite direction from that expected points to a the­

oretical problem, not the small sample size.

The first step of the reasoning, that the n a t i o n a l sys tem g e n er ate s
similarity effects in a local metropolitan area,
dence in the literature reviewed;

however,

is supported by evi­

given that the cities stud­

ied h e r e are a l l in one s ect ion of the country ,

it is p o s s i b l e that

those composite findings obscure significant regional
se c o n d step of the reasoning,

that the n a t u r e of the o v e r a l l

network is reflected in the social services network,
suspect

variations.

in sec t i o n D, and these r e s u l t s

The

lo cal

was identified as

do n o t h i n g

to suggest

the

contrary.

The zero-order correlations between the independent variable and metro­
politan area variables provide support for the first step of the rea­
son in g

on w h i c h

this section's g e n e r a l

hypothesis

was based.

number of external ties has a positive correlation with all

The

four local

area variables used in section D: proportion of in-migration, economic
diversity,

e t h n i c h e t e r oge nei ty ,

correlations

w i t h SES (r = 0.791,

migration (r = 0.640,

and

the

SES

index.

Of

these

the

p < 0.001) and p r o p o r t i o n of in-

p = 0.013) are highly significant.

141
The results of this section,
the structures of local

therefore,

social

underscore the likelihood

that

service networks are not strongly in­

fluenced by the structure of the o verall interorganizational network of
the ir m e t r o p o l i t a n areas.

W h i l e there is some e v i d e n c e that l o c a l

metropolitan areas function as adaptive systems within the environment
of

the national

evoke adaptive
natively,

system,
behavior

of course,

strongly homeostatic.

they may not provide
from their social

the s o c i a l

sufficient diversity

service

services

component.

to

Alter­

c o m p o n e n t may s i m p l y be

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A.

Summary of Findings

On a v e r y g e n e r a l l e v e l , the data a n a l y s i s in this d i s s e r t a t i o n was
designed to show that:
a.

internal organizational variables do not affect the likelihood of
formation of interorganizational dyads in any systematic way, but
organizational size and complexity do;

b.

the substantive development of interorganizational dyads does not
f oll o w any systematic pattern;

c.

structural

features of interorganizational networks significantly

condition the rate at which dyads are

formed among

the organiza­

tio ns in the network, w h i c h d yads are formed and the extent to
which dyads will be multiplex in nature;
d.

characteristics of local

metropolitan environments

nature of their interorganizational

netwo rk s, and

condition the
these effects

are r e f l e c t e d in subnet wor ks such as those formed among social
service agencies; and
e.

the ext ent of c o n n e c t i o n to the national environment conditions
l o c a l m e t r o p o l i t a n e n v i r o n m e n t s and

thus

the n a t u r e of l o c al

interorganizational networks and their social service agency sub­
networks.

The d e s i g n of the a n a l y s i s was g u i d e d by a s ystems a p p r o a c h to the
various levels of analysis i n v olv ed.
142

Buck ley 's d i s t i n c t i o n b et wee n

143
h o m e o s t a t i c and a d a p t i v e systems p r o v i d e d a basi s for p rop os i t i o n s
about system-environraent interactions at each level, and these proposi­
tions guided the development of predictions.

The most crucial proposi­

tion is that for the three lowest levels of analysis in this disserta­
tion —

o r g a n i z a t i o n s , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l dya ds, an d n e t w o r k s of social

service organizations —

the entities invo lv ed are capable of more than

homeostatic behavior, but will not d i s p l a y a d a p t i v e

behavior unless

their environments are sufficiently variable to require it.
is c o n s i d e r e d

h o m e o s t a t i c if it is a l l - o r - n o n e

Behavior

in the pres enc e of

necessary conditions, adaptive if it is a smoother function of environ­
m e n t a l dema nds ; this d i s t i n c t i o n p ermits the use of c o r r e l a t i o n and
r e g r e s s i o n to d ete c t a d a p t i v e beh avi or.

Th e e n t i t i e s s tu d i e d were

assumed to be sufficiently similar that one-time data on them could be
substituted for longitudinal data on fewer cases.
tions,

the s p e c i f i c a n a l y s e s were d e s i g n e d

Within these assump­

to s h o w the pres enc e or

absence of adaptive behavior at various levels.

The a n a l y s i s was a l s o u n d e r t a k e n w it h the a s s u m p t i o n that a l o c al
network of social service organizations provides the most crucial level
of analysis for understanding and intervening in the d elive ry of social
services

to individuals.

port this assumption;
several

The findings taken as a whole strongly sup­

both the findings

that

confirm predictions,

that do not, underscore the central nature of the local social

s e r v i c e n e t w o r k in d e t e r m i n i n g the d e l i v e r y of s o c i a l
c lients.

and

services

to

144
1.

Internal Organizational Variables

Past research has suggested that complexity,

centralization,

level of

internal communication, and administrative e f f i c i e n c y are r e l a t e d
the development of interorganizational
izations.
of

links in social

service organ­

A hypothesized relation between formalization and formation

IOR l i n k s has a l s o been r e p e a t e d l y sought,

Finally,

to

the

innovativeness

t h o u g h n e v e r found.

of organizations had been suggested as a

key e l e m e n t in any m o d e l l i n k i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n i n g to the
external environment.

One assumption underlying

the present analysis was

are p r e d o m i n a n t l y homeostatic,

leading

relationships previously found (or hoped

that organizations

to the c o n c l u s i o n
for) between

that the

internal

organ­

izational variables (centralization, internal communication, formaliza­
tion,

and efficiency) and IOR formation would disappear when organiza­

tion size and complexity were controlled.

Similarly,

innovation was

expected to show no relation to any variable at any l e v e l once size and
complexity were controlled.

Size and complexity of organizations were

expected to show strong relationships to IOR formation because of their
enabling role in the formation of such links.

The

findings,

with two exceptions,

confirmed

c o n t r a d i c t s e v e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s in past work.

the predictions made and
No i n t e r n a l o r g a n i z a ­

tional variable showed a statistically significant zero-order correla­
tion with the number of interorganizational relationships,

nor did any

of them show a significant partial correlation when size and complexity
were controlled.

Innovation similarly lacked any relationship to size,

145
c o m p l e x i t y , or I n t e r n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s .

Size showed its

traditionally established relationship to complexity, and its predicted
relationship to the number of interorganizational relationships.

A statistically significant relationship between innovation and number
of IOR links, h o w e v e r , remain ed e v e n a fter con tr ols .
result

is contrary to prediction,

it reinforces

A l t h o u g h this

the importance of the

social services network for determining social service programming:
number of external contacts is the only variable

the

that shows a persis­

tent impact on the development of new programs.

The expected relationship between organizational complexity and number
of

IOR links

appeared

in the zero-order

w h e n size was c o n t r o l l e d .
tion.

correlation,

but disappeared

This result, too, was c o n t r a r y to pr edi c­

It strongly underscores

the original

tions are h o m e o s t a t i c in their be h a v i o r .

assumption that organiza­
O n l y size, a v e r y c l e a r

e n a b l i n g v a r i a b l e in forming ties to other o r g a n i z a t i o n s ,

shows an

impact on IOR formation.

2.

Interorganizational Dyad Development

Previous research has suggested that there is a pattern to the d eve lop ­
ment of interorganizational dyads; that relationships requiring greater
d e g r e e s of c o m m i t m e n t and f o r m a l i z a t i o n are b u i l t on e a r l i e r stages
i nvolving

lesser commitment and formalization.

using more objective criteria for the existence

The present research,
of relationships

previous work, and involving larger numbers of organizations,
the c o n c l u s i o n

that such a process is not u n i v e r s a l .

than

leads to

The e a r l i e r

146
research, conducted in rural settings, may simply demonstrate a conten­
tion on which this resarch is based:

in a relatively placid environ­

ment, d y a d s m a y d i s p l a y h o m e o s t a t i c b e h a v i o r that is not present in
more tumultuous environments like the cities studied here.
r e f l e c t the fact that e a r l i e r a n a l y s e s
u n i l ate ral ly reported

links,

while

It may also

l o o k e d for pa t t e r n s o n l y in

this study relied on mutually re­

ported links.

The prediction that dyads would show adaptive behavior was based on the
variegated environment
formed within them.

social

service networks

provide

for

the dyads

The analysis strongly confirmed the prediction —

there was no d i s c e r n i b l e pa ttern to the d e v e l o p m e n t of s u b s t a n t i v e
content of dyadic relationships in our data.

Although the results of this portion of the analysis were quite convin­
cing,

the inverse nature of the hypothesis (that statistically signif­

icant results would not occur) and the findings leave open the question
of whether any systematic patterns may exist in the development of the
content of Interorganizational dyads, and under what conditions. Defin­
i t i v e r e s e a r c h on this q u e s t i o n w o u l d h a v e to be l o n g i t u d i n a l , and
based

on objective measures

of organizational

interaction;

but while

fu tu r e r e s e a r c h m a y f r u i t f u l l y pursue the c i r c u m s t a n c e s und er w h i c h
such patterns might occur,
that they will be present.

there can no longer be a simple assumption

147
3.

The Effect of Interorganizational Networks
on Dyad Formation and Content

The r e s o u r c e e xc h a n g e p e r s p e c t i v e on i n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l rel a t i o n s
emphasizes

the importance of resource control

tern of interaction.

in determining

Since organizations with the most

the pat­

resources

are

assumed to dominate interaction, the larger the number of organizations
in a network that has substantial resources,
interoganizational
ever,

the

links that can be expected.

g r e a t e r nu mbers of reso ur ce ce nters

larger the number of

Most importantly, how­

s h o u l d g e n e r a t e gre ate r

I n t e r a c t i o n among those o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i t h f ew resour ces ; and a re­
source-poor organization with ties to more

resource-rich organizations

should show relationships to more of its fe llo w resource-poor organiza­
tions.

Where there are many centers of resource control, moreover,

the

use of multiplexity in relationships as a way to protect them was pre­
dicted to decline, because in such an environment alternative relation­
ships provide equivalent interactional control.

The prediction of increased density of i n t e r a c t i o n was
ported by the data;
cies,

however,

the expectation for individual

was only weakly supported;

m u l t i p l e x i t y was v e r y s t r o n g l y refuted:
relationships accompanying wid er
greater multiplexity in the

s t r o n g l y sup­

resource-poor agen­

and the prediction regarding
the i n c r e a s e in number of

reso urc e d i s p e r s i o n a l s o i n v o l v e d

relationships formed.

One possible impli­

cation of these results is that greater resource dispersion in a system
has

its effects because of the greater availa bi lit y of resources (re­

s o u r c e - p o o r o r g a n i z a t i o n s do not h a v e

to co m p e t e so v i g o r o u s l y for

relationships with one or a few organizations), not through changes in

148
relationship-formation at the le v e l

of

Individual

organizations;

but

f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h w i l l be r e q u i r e d to d e t e r m i n e the e x act m e c h a n i s m s
involved.

4.

The Impact of the Local Environment on Social Service Networks

Since the social service network in any city is a subset of the overall
interorganizational network in that metropolitan area, it was predicted
that a greater number of centers of power in the o ver all network would
be reflected in a similar dispersal of influence in the social services
subnetwork.

Since there were no direct measures

work, however,

for the overall

net­

four substitute variables were used that had been shown

in previous research to be predictive of greater resource dispersion in
metropolitan areas.

The

results

were

four variables
social

exceptionally unsupportive

together accounted

of

for almost

service network influence dispersion.

the prediction —

none of

the

variance

the
in

Since the variables used

had been shown to h a v e the e x p e c t e d eff e c t on o v e r a l l m e t r o p o l i t a n
networks,

the proposition most

seriously c all e d

into question by the

results of the analysis was that the nature of the overall
reflected

in

the social

services network.

network is

The conclusion from these

results is that the social services networks in the cities studied are
predominantly homeostatic —
their environments.

relatively unresponsive to differences in

149
5.

Connection to the National Environment

The results and conclusion from the last section were reinforced by the
a bs e n c e of a n y eff ect of the nu m b e r of ties to the l a r g e r (national)
system within metropolitan areas
their social

services networks.

on the assumption
reflected

to the concentration of influence in
Again the chain of reasoning depended

that the structure of the o v e r a l l

in the soc ial

s e r v i c e s network.

local network is

The o t he r parts

to the

argument — — the variables used, and the proposition that more external
ties lead to g r e a t e r power d i f f u s i o n in the o v e r a l l n e t w o r k —
sufficiently supported by past research to make
the local ov er all network and the social

were

the connection between

services network the suspect

link in the reasoning.

6.

Overall Summary

There are two general conclusions from these analyses
implications

for u n d e r s t a n d i n g or i n t e r v e n i n g in social service de­

l i v e r y systems.
lev el

that have strong

The first is that the p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s from e v e r y

strongly underscores the centrality of the social services net­

work in the process of social service delivery.
ses are u n r e l a t e d

Organizational proces­

in any s y s t e m a t i c way to dyad formation, w h ere as

network processes are strongly related.

Variables that have been shown

to affect the interorganizational networks of entire metropolitan areas
are not

related

to social

service

network

structure,

suggesting

that

those networks are able to function homeostatically in their surround­
ings,

relative ly unaffected in their basic structure by environmental

variation.

150
B.

Recommendations for Further Research

The chief deficiency in research on organizational

networks generally

and social service networks in particular is the lack of longitudinal
data.

A l t h o u g h some studies h a v e been c a r r i e d out o v e r two or three

years,

the processes which were the subject of this dissertation occur

over

decades.

If r e s e a r c h on i n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

p r o c e s s e s is to

advance our knowledge of those processes significantly,
of

the same

systems must

be maintained for several

the manner of the major studies that have
knowledge
humans.

about

ongoing studies

decades —

much in

established a groundwork of

the r e l a t i o n s h i p of l i f e s t y l e

to h e a r t at tacks in

Different studies by different researchers in different places

in different years is no substitute for genuine longitudinal research.

A second m a j o r d e f i c i e n c y of i n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
r e s o u r c e f l o w s are not documented.
been available;

research

is that

In m a n y c a s e s the data h a v e not

in all cases it has been (and will

always be) simpler

to collect binary data on the existence of contact.

It will be impos­

si b l e , h o w e v e r , to d e v e l o p r e a l i s t i c m o d e l s of i n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
s y s t e m s so long, for exampl e, as a f l o o d of c l i e n t r e f e r r a l s bet w e e n
major agencies has the same value in analysis as an occasional
between small ones;

trickle

or so long as attributions of influence must sub­

stitute for direct measures of economic power.
tion of b u d g e t a r y and

e x p e n d i t u r e r ec o r d s

Increasing computeriza­
in the p u b l i c sector is

ushering in an age when the technical work of retrieving and analyzing
the d a t a w i l l no l o n g e r be a f o r m i d a b l e barrier.
developing projects to use them.

It is time to begin

151
A third major deficiency in interorganizational
research in social

service networks,

research,

particularly

is the absence of information on

the interface between subnetworks and the larger networks of which they
are a part.
trate,

As some of the find ing s in the p r e s e n t r es ear ch i l l u s ­

it can n o t s i m p l y be as sum ed that a s u b n e t w o r k r e f l e c t s

l a r g e r e n t i t y in w h i c h it is imbedded.

the

T e c h n i q u e s for this sort of

research have been developed and applied in interpersonal networks, but
the tremendous expense and effort involved in gathering equivalent data
for organizations has inhibited the a p p l i c a t i o n of the t e c h ni qu es at
that

level.

ever,

Without

the information such projects can provide,

how­

it w i l l be i m p o s s i b l e to e xa m i n e h o w s o c i a l s e r v i c e networks

actu all y

are

affected

by (or avoid

being affected

by) their environ­

ments, or to i d e n t i f y conditio ns under w h i c h f i n d i n g s d i f f e r e n t from
those obtained in this research should be expected.

An area of research that would be extremely
interorganizational

fruitful

structures on dyadic

to pursue is the

effect

of

tent.

As the p re s e n t res e a r c h has shown, the ef f e c t s are strong, but

the m e c h a n i s m s are not clear.
and a clearer

formation and con­

An u n d e r s t a n d i n g of these m e c h a n i s m s ,

understanding of the effects

themselves,

any theoretical grasp of modern advanced societies.

is central

to

Again, techniques

have been developed and applied in the study of interpersonal networks;
they need to be used in interorganizational research as well.

F i n a l l y , an a rea of cr u c i a l c on c e r n to the d e s i g n of social s e r v i c e
delivery is the relationship of client satisfaction to other variables.
The

research

needed

is not

a simple

assessment

of

the

levels

of

152
satisfaction related to certain delivery variables, but rather the way
c l i e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n a ff e c t s s e r v i c e arrangements in different struc­
tural configurations for service delivery.
the basis

for definition of clients:

tom-based;

political

groupings versus symp­

a sec ond important area for i n v e s t i g a t i o n is the use of

voucher systems,
money.

One important dimension is

where individual

clients

control

the actual

flow of

Research in each area that treats client satisfaction seriously

can a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s about eff ects on the r e l a t i v e power of c l i e n t s
vis-a-vis providers,

the effectiveness of service when measured objec­

tively, and the integration of service deli ver y into the larger politi­
cal system that generates demand for it.

C.

Recommendations to Agencies Intervening
to Improve Social Service Delivery

The key understanding relevant to intervention in social

service sys­

tems that derives from the present research is that multip le centers of
resource

concentration generate system-wide effects

in social

service

networks in the form of more joint programming and greater density of
communication and client referral.

The first principle of intervention

should thus be, do not funnel money through existing major agencies in
attempts

to change

the system.

Not only is such a strategy likely to

r e i n f o r c e w h a t e v e r patte rn s of i n t e r a c t i o n a l r e a d y exist,

but the

administrative effort required to harness the resulting resource flows
into desired channels will be horrendous.

153
Instead,

if intervention is intended

to change

the functioning of the

s o c i a l s e r v i c e s system, r e s o u r c e s s h o u l d be f u n n e l e d to new or pre­
v i o u s l y u n i m p o r t a n t o rga nizations.
organizations must

be s u b s t a n t i a l

The r e s o u r c e s p r o v i d e d to such
enough that they become centers of

influence and thus increase the number of such centers

in the network.

It may be necessary, to achieve specific ends, to mandate the formation
of certain relationships between agencies in a social

service network.

What is important is to avoid overusing such a tactic.

Since increas­

ing the number of centers of influence will generate denser interaction
t h r o u g h t the net w o r k anyway, the cost re q u i r e d to a d m i n i s t e r and e n ­
force a host of m a n d a t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s w o u l d
supplementing
mandating of

be b e t t e r a p p l i e d

to

the r e s o u r c e s of potential new influence centers.
interaction,

then,

can be reserved

for crucial

The

connec­

tions that show continued resistance to more indirect encouragements.

Also,

it is e s s e n t i a l not to waste e f f o r t a t t e m p t i n g

to adjust

the

environment of social service systems in the vain hope that they will
adapt in specified ways.

While future research may uncover connections

that make such projects feasible,

the evidence of the present research

is that the structure of social service systems (in medium-sized U.

S.

cities, at least) is relatively impermeable to environmental variation.

Finally,
results

it is necessary to avoid overinflated expectations about the
of intervention.

The social

sized cities are very complex;

service networks of even medium-

the planned effects of intervention may

be deflected and unplanned effects strongly propagated by the processes

154
already at work in such networks.
using

resources

to achieve generally useful

interaction density
than struggling

This underscores

results,

through building additional

to force specific outcomes.

the importance of
like increasing

power centers,

rather

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Aiken, Michael
1969

" C o m m u n i t y Power and M o b i l i z a t i o n . "
American
Political and Social Science Annals 385:76-88.

Academy

of

1970

"The Distribution of Community Power: Structural Bases and So­
c i a l Consequences".
Pp. 48 7-525 in M i c h a e l A ik e n and Paul E.
Mott, The Structure of Community Power. New York: Random House,

Aiken, Michael, and Robert R. Alford
1970a

"Community Structure and Innovation: The Case of Urban
al." American Sociological Review 35:650-665.

Renew­

1970b

" C o m m u n i t y S t r u c t u r e and I n n o v a t i o n : The Case of P u b l i c H o u s ­
ing." American Political Science Review 64:843-864.

Aiken, Michael, Robert Dewar, Nancy DiTomaso, Jerald Hage, and Gerald
Zeitz
1975

Coordinating Human Services: New Strategies for Building Service
Deli ver y Systems.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Aiken, Michael, and Jerald Hage
1968

" O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Interdependence and Intraorganizational Struc­
ture." Pp. 367-394 In Merlin B. Brinkerhoff and Phillip R. Kunz
(ed.), C o m p l e x O r g a n i z a t i o n s and T h e i r E n v i r o n m e n t s . Dubuque,
Iowa: W i l l i a m C. Br own Co., 1972.
O r i g i n a l l y in A m e r i c a n
Sociological Review 33:912-930.
Also pp. 161-184 in W il l i a m M.
E v a n (ed.), I n t e r o g a n l z a t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s : S e l e c t e d R e a d i n g s ,
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1978. Also pp.
269-294 in Wolf V. Heydebrand (ed.), Comparative Organizations:
The Results of Empirical Research, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973.

Aiken, Michael, and Paul E. Mott
1970

The Structure of Community Power.

New York:

Random House, Inc.

Alba, Richard D.
1982

"Taking Stock of Network Analysis: A Decade's Results." Pp. 3974 in Samuel B. Bacharach, R e s e a r c h in the S o c i o l o g y of
O r g a n i z a t i o n s , V o l u m e 1. G r e e n wi ch, C o n n e c t i c u t : JA I Press,
Inc.

155

156
Aldrich, Howard
1972
,fAn O r g a n i z a t i o n - E n v i r o n m e n t P e r s p e c t i v e on C o o p e r a t i o n and
Conflict Between Organizations in the Manpower Training System."
Pp. 11-37 in A nant R. N e g a n d h i (ed.), C o n f l i c t and P o w e r in
Complex Organizations.
Kent, Ohio: Comparative Administration
Research Institute (CARI) of the Center for Business and Econ­
omic Research, Kent State U n i v e r s i t y , 1972.
O r i g i n a l l y in
Quarterly Journal of Management Development 3:82-104, Also pp.
49 -70 in Anant R. N e ga nd hi (ed.), I n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n T h e o r y ,
Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1975.
1976a

"Resource Dependence and I n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l R e l a ti ons : R e l a ­
tions Between Local Employment Service Offices and Social Ser­
vice Sector Organizations." A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Society 7:419454.

1976b

"An I n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n D e p e n d e n c y Perspective on Relations Be­
twe en the E m p l o y m e n t S e r v i c e and Its O r g a n i z a t i o n Set."
Pp.
2 3 1 - 2 6 6 in R a l p h H. K i l man n, Louis R. Pondy, and Dennis P.
Sle vin (eds.), The Management of Organization Design, Volume II:
Research and Methodology. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.

Bacharach, Samuel B. (ed.)
1982
R e s e a r c h in the S o c i o 1 o g y of O r g a n i z a t i o n s ,
Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, Inc.
Barnes, John Arundel
1954
" C l a s s and C o m m it tee s
R elations, 7:39-58.
1969

Volume

in a N o r w e g i a n I s l a n d Parish."

1.

Human

"N e t w o r k s and P o l i t i c a l Process." Pp. 5 1-76 in J. Clyde
M i t c h e l l , S oc i a l Net w o r k s in U r b a n Situat ion s: A n a l y s e s of
P e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s in C e n t r a l African Towns. Manchester,
England: Manchester University Press.

Beniger, James R.
1976
"Sampling Social Networks: The Subgroup Approach."
Proceedings
of the B u s i n e s s and Ec o n o m i c Section, A m e r i c a n S t a t i s t i c a l
Association, pp. 226-231.
Benson, J. Kenneth
1975
"The I n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l N e t w o r k as a P o l i t i c a l
Administrative Science Quarterly 20:229-249.

Economy."

Benson, J. Ken n e t h , J o s e p h T. Kunce, C h a r l e s A. T h o mp so n, and D a v i d L.
Allen
1973
C o o r d i n a t i n g H u m a n Se rvices:
A S o c i o l o g i c a l S tudy of an
I n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l N e t w o r k . C o l u m b i a , Mis sou ri : R e g i o n a l
R e h a b i l i t a t i o n R e s e a r c h Institute, U n i v e r s i t y of M i s s o u r i Columbia.

157

Bernard, H. Bussell, and Peter D. Klllvorth
1977

" I n f o r m a n t A c c u r a c y in S o c i a l
Communications Research 4:3-18.

Network

Data

II."

Human

Bernard, H. Bussell, Peter D. Killworth, and Lee Sailer
1980

"Informant Accuracy In Social Network Data IV: A Comparison of
C l i q u e - L e v e l Struc tures in B e h a v i o r a l and C o g n i t v e Network
Data." Social Networks 2:191-218.

1981

"A Note on Inferences Regarding Network Subgroups:
Burt and Bittner."
Social Networks 3:89-92.

Response to

Berry, Brian Joe Lobley
1972

C ity C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Handbook: M e t h o d s and A p p l i c a t i o n s .
York: Wiley-Interscience.

New

Blau, Peter M., and Richard A.Schoenherr
1971

The Structure of Organizations.

New York: Basic Books,

Inc.

Boorman, Scott A., and Harrison C. White
1976

"Social Structure from Multiple Networks II:
American Journal of Sociology 81:1384-1446.

Role

Structures."

Brinkerhoff, Herlin B., and Kunz, Phillip R. (eds.)
1972

C o m p l e x O r g a n i z a t i o n s and T h e i r Environments.
Wil l i a m C. Brown Company.

Dubuque, Iowa:

Brittain, Jack, and John H. Freeman
1980

" O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Proliferation and Density-Dependent Selection:
Organizational Evolution in the S e m i c o n d u c t o r Industry."
Pp.
2 9 1 — 338 in John R. Kimberly, Robe r t H. M i l e s , and Associates,
T h e O r g a n i z a t i o n a l L i f e C y c l e : I s s u e s in the C r e a t i o n ,
T r a n s f o r m a t i o n , and D e c l i n e of O r g a n i z a t i o n s . San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Buckley, Walter
1967

Sociology and Modern Systerns Theory.
Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Englewood

Cliffs,

N.

J.:

Buckaan, m i n n 0x1ey
1971

Building a Network of Services:
fare Federation of Cleveland.

1963-1971.

Cleveland: The We l ­

Burns, Tom and G. M. Stalker
1961

The Management of Innovation.

London: Tavistock Publications.

Burt, Ronald S.
1977

"STRUCTURE": A Computer Pro g r a m P r o v i d i n g Basic Data for the
Analysis of Empirical Positions in a System of Actors."
Survey
R e s e a r c h Cen t e r Working Paper // 5, S u r v e y R e s e a r c h Center,
University of California, Berkeley.

1981

"Studying
Surveys."

Status/Role Sets as Ersatz Network Positions
Sociological Methods and Research 9:313-337.

in Mass

158

a

1982

Toward

Structural Theory of Action.

1983

" D i s t i n g u i s h i n g R e l a t i o n a l Contents." Pp. 35-74 in R o n a l d S.
Burt and M i c h a e l J. M i n o r (eds.), A p p l i e d N e t w o r k A n a l y s i s : k
Methodological Introduction.
Bev e r l y Hills, California: Sag¥
Publications, Inc.

Burt, Ronald S., and William M. Bittner
1981
"A N ote on Inferences R e g a r d i n g
Networks 3:71-88

New York:

Network

Academic Press.

Subgroups."

Soc i a l

Burt, Ronald S., and Michael J. Minor, (eds.)
1983
A p p l l e d N e t w o r k A n a l y s i s : A^ M e t h o d o l o g i c a l Introduction.
Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Carroll, Glenn
1984
" D y namics of P u b l i s h e r S u c c e s s i o n in Newspaper Organizations."
Administrative Science Quarterly, 29:93-113.
Carroll, Glenn, and Jacques Delacroix
1982
" O r g a n i z a t i o n a l M o r t a l i t y in the N e w s p a p e r
Argentina and Ireland: An Ecological Approach."
Science Quarterly 27:169-198.

I n d u stries of
Administrative

Child, John
1972
" O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Structure, E n v i r o n m e n t , and Performance: The
Role of Strategic Choice."
Sociology 6:1-22.
Clark, Burton C.
1965
" I n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l P a tterns in Education".
Pp. 356-366 in
M e r l i n B. B r i n k e r h o f f and P h i l l i p R. Kunz (eds.), C o m p l e x
Organizations and Their Environments.
Dubuque, Iowa: William C.
B r o w n Company, 1972.
O r i g i n a l l y in A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science
Q u a r t e r l y 10:224-237.
Clark, Terry N.
1968
"Community Structure, Decision-Making, Budget Expenditures, and
U r b a n R e n e w a l in 51 A m e r i c a n C o m m u n i t i e s " .
Ame rlean
Sociological Review 33:576-598.
Clark, Terry N. (ed.)
1968
C o m m u n i t y S t r uctur e and Decision-Making: Comparative Analyses.
San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company.

Computation Laboratory of Harvard University
1955
The Annals of the Computation Laboratory of Harvard University,
V o l u m e 35: T a b l e s of the C u m u l a t i v e B i n o m i a l P r o b a b i l i t y
D i s t r i b u t i o n . Cambridge, M a s s a c h u s e t t s : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y
Press.

Cook, Karen S.
1977

" E x c h a n g e and Power in Networks of I n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l R e l a ­
tions."
Sociological Quarterly 18:62-82.

159

Crow, Gary A.
1970

" I n t e r a g e n c y P o o l i n g of R e s o u r c e s to E s t a b l i s h New Services".
Mental Hygiene 54:118-122.

Czeplel, John A.
1975

"Patterns of Interorganizational Communication and the Diffusion
of a M a j o r T e c h n i c a l I n n o v a t i o n in a C o m p e t i t i v e I n d u s t r i a l
Community."
Academy of Management Journal 18:6-24.

Davis, James A.
1979

"The Davis/Holland/Leinhardt Studies: An Overview."
Pp. 51-62
in Paul W. Holland and Samuel Leinhardt (ed.), Perspectives on
Social Network Research.
New York: Academic Press.

Delacroix, Jacques, and Glenn Carroll
1983

"Organizational Foundings: An Ecological Study of the Newspaper
Industries of Argentina and Ireland."
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Sci ence
Q u a r t e r l y 28:274-291.

Dill, William R.
1958

" E n v i r o n m e n t as a n I n f l u e n c e on M a n a g e r i a l A u t o n o m y . "
Administrative Science Quarterly 2:409-443.
Also pp. 94-128 in
Wolf V. Heydebrand (ed.), Comparative Organizations: The Results
of Empirical Research, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeH a l l , Inc., 1973.

Emery, Fred E., and Trist, Eric L.
1965

"The C a u s a l Tex t u r e of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Environments." Pp. 268281 in Merlin B. Brinkerhoff and Phillip R. Kunz (eds.), Complex
Organizations and Their Environments, Dubuque, Iowa: William C.
Brown Co., 1972.
Originally in Human Relations 18:21-32.

Erickson, Bonnie J., and T. A. Nosanchuck
1983

"Applied Network Sampling."

Social

Networks

5:367-382.

Fararo, Thomas J.
1981

" Biased Networks and
Networks 3:137-159.

Social

Structure

Theorems."

Soc i a l

Fararo, Thomas J, and Morris Sunshine
1964

A S t u d y of a Bias e d F r i e n d s h i p N e t . Syracuse, New York: Y o u t h
Development Center, Syracuse University.

Feller, William
1968

An I n t r o d u c t i o n to P r o b a b i l i t y T h e o r y and Its A p p l i c a t i o n s ,
third edition, volume I. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Festinger, Leon
1949

"The A n a l y s i s of So c i o g r a m s
Relations 2:153-158.

Using

Matrix

Algebra."

Human

Freeman, John S., Glenn R. Carroll, and Michael T. Hannan
1983

"The L i a b i l i t y of Newness: Age D e p e n d e n c e In O r g a n i z a t i o n a l
Death Rates." American Sociological Review 48:587-634.

160
Freeman, John S . , and Michael T. Hannan
1975
" G r o w t h and D e c l i n e P r o c e s s e s in
Sociological Review 40:215-228.
1983

Ame r i c a n

"Ni c h e W i d t h and the D y namics of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Populations".
American Journal of Sociology 88:1116-1145.

Freeman, Linton G.
1977
"A Set of M e a s u r e s
Sociometry 40:35-41.
1979

Organizations."

of

Centrality

" C e n t r a l i t y in Social Networks:
Social Networks 1:215-239.

B a sed

on

Conceptual

Betweenness."

Clarificatio n . "

Freeman, Linton C . , Douglas Reeder, and Robert R. Mnlholland
1980
" C e n t r a l i t y in Social Networks: II. E x p e r i m e n t a l Results."
Social Networks 2:119-141.
Gilbert, Neil, and Harry Specht
1977
C o o r d i n a t i n g S o c i a l S e r v i c e s : A n A n a l y s i s of C o m m u n i t y
O r g a n i z a t i o n , and Staff C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . New York: Prae g e r
Publishers.
Granovetter, Mark S.
1973
"The Strength of Weak Ties".
1360-1380.

American Journal of Sociology 78:

1974

G e t t i n g a^ Job: A St udy of C o n t a c t s and Careers.
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

1976

" N e t w o r k Sa m p l i n g : Some
Sociology 88:1287-1303.

1982

First

Steps."

Cambridge,

American Journal

of

"The S t r e n g t h of W e a k Ties: A N e t w o r k T h e o r y Revisited."
Pp.
105 - 1 3 0 in Peter V. M a r s d e n and Nan Lin, S o c i a l St r u c t u r e and
Network Analysis. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.

Hage, Jerald
1965
"An Axiomatic Theory of Organizations".
Quarterly 10:289-320.

Administrative

Science

Haire, Mason
1959
" B i o l o g i c a l M o d e l s and E m p i r i c a l H i s t o r i e s of the G r o w t h of
Organizations."
Pp. 272-306 in M a s o n H a i r e (ed.),
Modern
Organization Theory.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Haire, Mason (ed.)
1959
Modern Organization Theory.

New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Han n a n , Michael T. , and John Freeman
1977
"The Population Ecology of Organizations."
American Journal of
Sociology 82:929-964. Also pp. 131-171 in Marshall W. Meyer and
As s o c i a t e s , E n v i r o n m e n t s and O r g a n i z a t i o n s , San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1978.

161
1978

1984

" I n t e r n a l P o l i t i c s of G r o w t h and Decline."
Pp. 177-199 in
Marshall Meyer and Associates, Environments and Organizations,
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
" S t r u c t u r a l Inertia and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l
Sociological Review 49:149-164.

Change."

American

Harary, Frank R . , R. Z. Norman, and Dorwin Cartwright
1965
S t r u c t u r a l Mod e l s : An I n t r o d u c t i o n to the T h e o r y of D i rec t e d
Graphs.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Hawley, Amos
1968
" C o m m u n i t y Power and Urb a n R e n e w a l Success."
Pp. 464-473 in
M i c h a e l A i k e n and Paul E. Mott, The S t r u c t u r e of Co m m u n i t y
P o w e r . New York: Ran d o m House, 1970. O r i g i n a l l y in A m e r i c a n
Journal of Sociology 63:422-431.
1981

U r b a n Ec o l o g y : An E c o l o g i c a l A p p r o a c h , Second Edition.
York: John Wiley and Sons.

New

Heydebrand, Wolf V. (ed.)
1973
C o m p a r a t i v e O r g a n izations: The R e s u l t s of Empirical Research.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Holland, Paul, and Samuel Leinhardt
1983
"An O m n i b u s Test for Social S t r ucture Using Triads." Pp. 302325 in R o n a l d S. Burt and M i c h a e l J. Minor", (eds.), A p p l l e d
Network Analysis: A Methodological Introduction* Beverly Hills,
California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Holland, Paul W . , and Samuel Leinhardt (eds.)
1979
P e r s p e c t i v e s on S o c i a l N e t w o r k R e s e a r c h .
Press.

New York: A c adem i c

Hinmnon, Norman P., Patrick Doreian, and Klaus Teuter
1975
"A Structural Control Model of Organizational Change."
Sociological Review 40:813-824.

American

Kapferer, Bruce
1969
"Norms and the Manipulation of Relationships in a Work Context,"
Pp. 181-244 in J. C l y d e M i t c h e l l , S o c i a l N e t w o r k s in U r b a n
Situations: A n a l y s e s of P e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s in C e n t r a l
A f r i c a n T o w n s . Manche s t e r , Eng l a n d : M a n c h e s t e r U n i v e r s i t y
Press.
Killworth, Peter B . , and H. Russell Bernard
1976
"Informant Accuracy in Social Network Data."
35:269- 286.
1979

Human Organization

"Informant Accuracy in Social Network Data III: A Comparison of
T ri a d i c St r u c t u r e in B e h a v i o r a l and C o g n i t i v e Data." Soc i a l
N e t w o r k s 2:19-46.

162

Klonglan, Gerald E, Richard Du Warren, Judy M. Winklepleck, and Steven
K. Paulsen
1976

"Interorganizational Measurement in the Social Sector: Differ­
ences by Hierarchical Level." Administrative Science Quarterly
21:675-687.

Korte, Charles, and Stanley Milgram
1970

"Acquaintanceship Networks between Racial Groups: Application of
the S m a l l W o r l d Problem." J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and Soc i a l
P s y c h o l o g y 15:101-108.

Laumann, Edward O., and Peter T. Marsden
1982

" M i c r o s t r u e t u r a l A n a l y s i s in
Social Networks 4: pp. 329-348.

Interorganizational

Systems."

Laumann, Edward 0., Peter V. Marsden, and David Prensky
1983

"The Boundary Specification P r o b l e m in N e t w o r k Analysis."
Pp.
18-34 in R o n a l d S. Burt and M i c h a e l J. M i n o r (eds.), A p p l i e d
Network A nalysis: A Methodological Introduction. Beverly Hills,
California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Lawrence, Paul R., and Jay W. Lorsch
1967

O r g a n i z a t i o n and E n v i r o n m e n t ; M a n a g i n g D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and
Integration.
Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of
Business Administration, Harvard University.

Leinhardt, Samuel (ed.)
1977

S o c i a l Networks:
Press.

A Developing Paradigm.

New York:

Academic

Levine, Sol, and Paul E. White
1961

"Exchange as a Conceptual Framework for the Study of Interorgan­
i z a t i o n a l Relationships".
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Sci e n c e Q u a r t e r l y
5:583-601.

Levine, Sol, Paul E. White, and Benjamin D. Paul
1963

"Community Interorganizational P r o b l e m s in P r o v i d i n g M e d i c a l
Care and Soci a l Services."
A m e r i c a n Journal of Public Health
53:1183-1195.

Lincoln, James R.
1982

"Intra— (and Inter-) O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Networks."
Pp. 1-3 8 in
S a m u e l B. B a c h a r a c h (ed.), R e s e a r c h in the S o c i o l o g y of
O r g a n i z a t i o n s , V o l u m e 1. Greenwich, C o n necticut: J A I Press,
Inc.

Litwak, Eugene, and Lydia F. Hylton
1962

" I n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l A n a lysis: A H y p o t h e s i s on Coordi n a t i n g
Agencies." A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y 6: pp. 395-420.
Also
pp.
2 2 3 - 2 4 1 In W o l f
V. H e y d e b r a n d ,
Comparative
O r g a n i z a t i o n s : The R e s u l t s of E m p i r i c a l R e s e a r c h , E n g l e w o o d
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973.

163
Ha n i h a, John, and Charles Perrow
1965
"The R e l u c t a n t O r g a n i z a t i o n and the A g g r e s s i v e
Pp. 151-167 in Merlin B. Brinkerhoff and Phillip
C o m p l e x O r g a n i z a t i o n s and T h eir Environments.
Wil l i a m C. Brown Company, 1972.
Originally in
Science Quarterly 10:238-257.
March, James 6. (ed.)
1965
Handbook of Organizations.

Environment."
R. Kunz (eds.),
Dubuque, Iowa:
Administrative

Chicago: Rand-McNally.

Marcus, Philip M., and Ann W. Sheldon
1982
I n t e r a g e n c y D e l i v e r y of M e n t a l H e a l t h to the A g e d .
East
Lansing, Michigan: Social Science R e s e a r c h Bureau, M i c h i g a n
State University.
Harreet, Cora Bagley
1971
"On the S p e c i f i c a t i o n of I n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
Sociology and Social Research 56:83-97.
Marsden, Peter T . , and Nan Lin
1982
Social Stru c t u r e and Net w o r k
California: Sage Publications.

Analysis.

Dimensions."

Beverly

Hills,

McKelvey, Bill
1982
Organizational Systematica; Taxonomy, Evolution, Classification.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Milgram, Stanley
1967
"The Small World Problem."

Psychology Today 1:61-67.

Mitchell, J. Clyde
1969
S o c i a l N e t w o r k s in U r ban Situations: A n a l y s e s of P e r s o n a l
Relationships in Central A f r i c a n T o w n s . M a n c h e s t e r , England:
Manchester University Press.
Mizruchi, Mark S.
1982
The S t r u c t u r e of the A m e r i c a n C o r p o r a t e Network:
Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

1904-1974.

Moreno, Jacob L.
1934
Who Shall Survive?
Washington, D. C.: Nervous and Mental Health
P u b l i s h i n g Company.
R e p u b l i s h e d in 1953, New York: Beacon
House.
Morse, Edward T.
1977
"The Eff e c t s of F o r m a l i z a t i o n on O r g a n i z a t i o n a l A d a p t i v e Be­
havior." Organization and Administrative Sciences 8(4): 107-122.
Nie, N o r m a n H., C. H a d l a i H u l l , J e a n G. Jenkins, K a r i n Steinhrenn e r ,
and Dale Q. Brent
1975
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.
New York: McGrawHill.

164
Paulson, Steven &.
1974
"Causal Analysis of Interorganizational Relations: An Axiomatic
Theory Revised." Administrative .Science Quarterly 19:319-327
Quinn, Joan, Joan Segal, Helen Ralsz, and Christine Johnson (eds.)
1982
C o o r d i n a t i n g C o m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s for the E l d e r l y ; The Tria g e
Experience.
New York: Springer Publishing Company.
R ichards, William D . , Jr.
1975
"A M a n u a l for N e t w o r k Analysis." Unpublished, available from
the Institute for Communication Research, Sta n f o r d U niversi t y ,
Palo Alto, California.
Rogers, David L.
1974a "Towards a Scale of Interorganizational Relations among Public
Agencies." Sociology and Social Research 59:61-70.
Rogers, Everett, and D. Lawrence Kincaid
1981
Communication Networks: Toward _a New Paradigm for Research.
York: Free Press.

New

Roy, William G.
1983
"The Unfolding of the Interlocking Directorate Structure of the
United States." American Sociological Review 48:248-257.

Selznick, Philip 0.
1949

T V A and the Grass Roots: A Study in the S o c i o l o g y of Form a 1
Organization.
Berkeley: University of California Press.

Simmel, Georg
1955
"The Web of Group Affiliations" (translated by Reinhard Bendix)
in C o n f l i c t and the Web of G r oup A f f i l i a t i o n s . New York: The
Free Press.
"The Web of Group Affiliations" Is a translation of
C h a p t e r 6, " D e r K r e u z u n g S o c i a l e r K r e i s e " , of S i m m e l ' s
Soziologie: Untersuchen Uber die Formen der Vergesellschaftung,
M unich: Dun c h e r and Hum b l o t , 1922.
The 1922 edition was a
revision; the first edition was published in 1908 in Leipzig by
D u n c h e r and Humblot.
" C o n f l i c t " is a t r a n s l a t i o n (by Kurt
Wolff) of Chapter 4 ("Der Streit") of the same work.
Stinchcombe, Arthur L.
1965
"Social Structure and Organizations."
Pp. 123-141 in Merlin B.
B r i n k e r h o f f and P h i l l i p R. Kunz (eds.), C o m p l e x O r g a n i z a t i o n s
and T h e i r E n v i r o n m e n t s . Dubuque, Iowa: W i l l i a m C. Brown Go.,
1972. O r i g i n a l l y pp. 146-160 in J a m e s G. M a r c h (ed.), H a n d b o o k
of Organizations, Chicago, Rand-McNally.
Travers, Jeffrey, and Stanley Milgram
1969
"An Experimental Study of the Small World Problem."
32:425-443.

Sociometry

165

Turk., Herman
1970

" I n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l N e tworks in U r b a n Society: Initial Pe r ­
spectives and Comparative Research." A m e r i c a n S o c i o l o g i c a l
Review 35:1-19.
Also as "Interorganizational Networks in Urban
Society",
pp.
239-255
in
William
M.
Evan
(ed.),
Interorganizational Relations; Selected Readings, Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1978.

1973a

" C o m p a r a t i v e U r ban S t r ucture from an Interorganizational Per­
spective." Administrative Science Quarterly 18:37-55.

1973b

Interorganizational Activation in Urban Communities: Deductions
from the Concept of System.
American Sociological Association:
Arnold and Columbia Rose Monograph series in Sociology.

1977

Organizations in Modern Life.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tan Poucke, Willy
1980

"Network Constraints on Social Action: Preliminaries for a Net­
work Theory." Social Networks 2:181-190.

Warren, Holand Leslie
1967a

"The I n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l F i e l d as a Focus for Investigation."
Pp. in Merlin B. Brinkerhoff and Phillip R. Kunz (eds.), Complex
Organizations and Their Environments.
Dubuque, Iowa: William C.
Brown Company.
Originally in Administrative Science Quarterly
12:396-419.

1971

"Alternative Strategies of Inter-Agency Planning".
Pp. 114-129
in White, Paul E,, and George J. V l a s a k , I n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
Research in Health: Conference Proceedings.
Washington, D. C.:
U. S. G o v e r n m e n t Pr i n t i n g Offi c e (U. S. Dept, of Health,
Education, and Welfare).

White, Harrison C., Scott A. Boorman, and Ronald L. Breiger
1976

" S o c i a l S t r ucture from M u l t i p l e Networks: I. B l o c k m o d e l s of
Roles and Positions." American Journal of Sociology 81:730-780.

White, Paul E., Sol Levine, and George J. Vlasak
1971

"Exchange as a Conceptual Framework for Understanding Interor­
ganizational Relationships: Application to Nonprofit Organiza­
tions."
Pp. 1 7 4 - 1 8 8 in A n a n t R. N e g a n d h i (ed.), M o d e r n
O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Theory: C o n t e x t u a l , Environmental, and Socio­
cultural Variables.
Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press,
1975.
O r i g i n a l l y pp. 3 5 - 5 3 I n A n a n t R. N e g a n d h i (ed.),
Organization Theory in aji Interorganizational Perspective, Kent,
Ohio: C o m p a r a t i v e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n R e s e a r c h Institute (CARI) of
the Center for Business and Economic Research, Kent State Uni­
versity.
A l s o pp. 1 8 2 - 1 9 5 in A n a n t R. N e g a n d h i (ed.),
I n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n T h e o r y , Kent, Ohio: Kent State U n i v e r s i t y
Press, 1975.

166

White, Paul E., and George J. Vlasak
1971

Interorganizational Research in Health: Conference Proceedings.
Washin g t o n , D. C.: U. S. G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g O f f i c e (U. S. Dept,
of Health, Education, and Welfare).

Wilensky, Harold L.
1967

Organizational
Incorporated.

Intel lice n c e .

New

York:

Basic

Books,

Williamson, Oliver E.
1965

"A Dynamic Theory of Interfirm Behavior.” Quarterly Journal of
E c o n o m i c s , 79: pp. 579-607. A l s o pp. 78-90 In W i l l i a m M. Evan,
Interorganizational Relations: Selected Readings, Philadelphia,
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1978.

1975

M a r k e t s and Hierarchies:
New York: The Free Press.

A n a l y s i s and Antitrust Implications.

APPENDIX A-l

Survey Instrument -- Part A
Interviewer Questionnaire

1

____________
f rom H a rk e t O pin io n Research.
I am
H e llo , I ' m
a s s is tin g tn e Department o t S o c ia l Science a t Hlchtgan S ta te U n iv e r s ity
and th e Departm ent o f S o ciolo gy a t Wayne S ta te U n iv e r s ity . These two
departm ents are j o i n t l y conducting a study o f v o lu n ta ry and p u b lic
agencies In M ichigan and O hio.
You should have re c e iv e d a l e t t e r o r have been to ld about th is research
p r o je c t .
( I F RESPONDENT HAS NOT RECEIVED LETTER, SHOW YOUR COPY CF
LETTER AND ALLOW RESPONDENT TO READ).
As th e l e t t e r says, any answers you g iv e us w111 be kept s t r i c t l y
c o n f id e n t i a l .
As you may know, u n iv e r s it y re s e a rc h p ro je c ts funded by th e fe d e ra l
government a re re q u ire d to g e t perm ission from respondents p r i o r to
In te r v ie w .
Would you sign t h is re le a s e form f o r me. A g ain , I p o in t
o u t th a t n e ith e r your name nor the name o f your agency w111 e v e r be
used 1n re p o rtin g the r e s u lts o f t h is re s e a rc h .

RECORD INTERVIEW START TIME

168

C4 1
THESE RESPONDENTS ARE NOT EXPECTED TO GIVE “DON’ T KNOW" OR NO RESPONSE
ANSWERS. IF THEY 0 0 , ALWAYS PROBE FOR BEST ESTIMATE/GUESS FROM ANSWER
CODES.

1.

What a re th e m ajor s e rv ic e s a n d /o r
programs o ffe r e d by th is agency?
(RECORD ALL MENTIONS)
1 s t mention

2 0 -2 2

VI

2nd mention

23 -25

V2

3rd mention

26 -28

V3

4th mention

29-31

V4

5th mention

3 2 -3 4

V5

3 5 -3 7

V6

38 -40

V7

(PROBE FOR ADDITIONAL MENTIONS)

.<P ONLY
T o ta l No, n en tlo n s

Z.

At how many d if f e r e n t lo c a tio n s do
you p ro v id e se rv ic es ?
(RECORD HUMBER)

3.

What are the m ajor changes In th e work
o f yo u r agency d u rin g the p ast f i v e
years?

a . .Has the number o f c l ie n t s served
(READ RESPONSES)

Has th e numfier o f s e rv ic e s a n d /o r
programs. . . (READ RESPONSES)

And, how about funding d o lla r s !
When I n f l a t i o n fs ex clu d e d ; has t h e
amount o f d o lla r s In the agency's y e a r ly
budget
(READ RESPONSES)

41-42 Y8
4 3 -4 4 V9

Decreased.....................................1
Stayed tn e same.......................... 2
In c re a s e d ........................................3
Don11‘ koow..................................... 3
No response
. 3

45 V10

Decreased......................
1
Stayed the seme.......................... 2
In creased ........................................ 3
D o n 't know. .
........................8
No response................................... 9

46 V I I

Decreased........................................1
Stayed the same..........................2
In c re a s e d ........................................3
D o n 't know..................................... B
No response................................... 3

47 VI2

169

Cd 1

Q uestion 3 , con tin u ed
d.

e.

4.

5.

6.

And how about sources o f funds? Mas
the number o f sources o f f u n d s . . . .
(READ RESPONSES}

D ecreased................................. 1
Stayed the same................... . 2
In c re a s e d
......................3
D o n 't know.................................8
No response...................., . , . . 9

48

V I3

F i n a l l y , has th e number o f s e rv ic e
lo c a tio n s ....(R E A D RESPONSES)

Decreased........................... ..1
Stayed the same......................2
In c re ase d ............................. .3
D o n 't know...............................8
No r e s p o n s e . . . . . ................... 9

49

V I4

A p p ro x im a te ly , what p ro p o rtio n o f yo u r
c l i e n t s are r e fe r r e d from o th e r human
s e rv ic e s ag en cies in t h is community?
( WRITE IN PERCENTAGE)

?

A p p ro x im a te ly , what p ro p o rtio n o f your
c li e n t s a r e - r e f e r r e d to you by i n f o r ­
m ation and r e f e r r a l services?
(WRITE IN PERCENTAGE)

\

A p p ro x im a te ly , w hat p ro p o rtio n o f people
coming to yo u r aaency a re r e fe r r e d to
o th e r agencies?
(WRITE IN PERCENTAGE)

00 -98 A c t,
99,100«98
99*Ko Ans
50. S1 V15

52-53 V I 6

_______________________________S4 " ”

A p p ro x im a te ly , what p ro p o rtio n o f yo u r
ag en cy's c lie n t s can be ad eq u ate ly
served w ith o u t u sing th e s e rv ic e s o r
programs o f o th e r agencies o r groups?
(WRITE IN PERCENTAGE)

V I7

56-57 V18
SB-74 a n

fl.

What s e r v ic e ; o r programs do people coming to yo u r agency need th a t a re
n o t a v a ila b le w it h in y o u r own agency? (WRITE IN SERVICE5)

Cd 2
1 -1 9 as 1

1 s t m ention

20-22

V19

2nd mention

23-25

V20

3rd mention

25 -28

V21

4 th mention

29-31

V22

5 th mention

3 2 -3 4

V23

35-37 V24
3 8 -4 0 V25

(PROBE FOR ADDITIONAL-MENTIONS)
KP ONLY
T o ta l No. Mentions

41-42

V2f

170

Cd 2
9.

What requ irem en ts about s e rv ic e s must you meet7

Yes-

No

D o n 't
Know

No
Response

a . Are you re q u ire d to pro vide
r e f e r r a l s e rv ic e s f o r c lie n ts ?

1

2

43

V27

b. Are you re q u ire d to accept
r e f e r r a l s from a n o th e r agency?

1

2

44

V28

c . Are you re q u ire d to subm it records
about c lie n t s to a n o th e r agency?

1

2

45

V29

d . Are you re q u ire d to g e t approval
from any o rg a n iz a tio n b e fo re
making changes In th e s e rv ic e s yo u r
agency p ro vides?
1

46

V30

e . Are you re q u ire d to p a r t ic ip a t e
1n any In te r-a g e n c y ccnnrtttees
o r groups?

1

47

V31

f . Are th e re any o th e r requirem ents
under which th e agency must
operate?
’

1

48

V32

10- Has t h is agency developed o r p a r t i c i p a te d 'fn any new programs o r s e rv ic e s
sin ce January 1 , 1976 In response to
f e d e r a l / s t a t e /l o c a l r e g u la tio n s , ru le s
o r p o lic ie s ?
In o tn e r w ords, are-y o u
In v o lve d In any new programs because
th e y a re mandated?

N o ..................................................... 1
Yes..................................................... 2
D o n 't know..................................... a
No response................................... 9

11* Has t h is agency been In v o lv e d In any
new programs sin c e January 1,* '1976 t h a t
are n o t mandated?

No........................................................ 1
Yes..................................................... 2
D o n 't k n o w ..................................3
No response.
..........................0

1 2 a . I s yo u r agency s e rv in g any c l i e n t
crouos who a r e new sin c e January 1 ,
1975 ( c l i e n t s your agency d id not
p re v io u s ly se rv e) In response to any
f e d e r a i / s t a t e /l a e a l re g u la tio n s ,
r u le s o r pot Id e s ?
In o th e r words,
a re you se rv in g any new c l i e n t groups
because o f mandate?

No. . .
..................................... 1
Yes..................................................... 2
D o n 't know..................................... 3
No response................................... 9

1 2 b . I * the agency s e rv in g any new c l i e n t
groups w ith o u t being under any
mandate to do so?

No........................................................1
Yes............ .......................................2
D o n 't know...................................3
No response...................................9

49

V33

50

V34

51

V35

52 V36

171

13.

What people o u ts id e th fs agency do you r e g u la r ly check w ith b efo re
making im p o rta n t d e c is io n s about agency p o l i c i e s , programs, p rocedures,
fu n d in g , e t c . 7 (WRITE IN , PROBE)

POSITION

ORGANIZATION OR GROUP

POSITION

ORGANIZATION OR GROUP

POSITION

ORGANISATION OR GROUP

POSITION

ORGANIZATION OR GROUP

POSITION

No
Coding

KP ONLY

'ORGANIZATION OR GROUP
T o ta l No. o f Peoole Named t
Respondent aoesn t cn ec* w ith anybody.SO
No resoanse......................
. .99

14. In yo u r o p in io n , a re th e r e p a r t i c u l a r
c l i e n t groups f o r whom i t is p a r t ­
i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t to develop
and c a r r y o u t c o lla b o r a t iv e o r
c o o p e ra tiv e programs?
( I F YES, Q. 14)
a . Which c l i e n t groups?

Cd 2

53-5A
V37

No........................................................ 1
Yes..................................................... 2
D o n 't know.
................... 3
No response. . . . . . . .
9

55 V38

(WRITE IN )

b, ( I F "DON'T KNOW" Q .a , ASK PROBE) I mean a re th e re .a n y types o f c lie n t s
fo r whom 1 t 1s d i f f i c u l t to work o u t c o lla b o r a t lv e 'o r c o o p e ra tiv e programs
w ith o th e r agencies? Which groups would tncEe be?

c . ( I F NO GROUPS NAMED IN Q.a o r Q .b , ASK:)
Is i t d i f f i c u l t to develop p ro je c ts f o r
tn e . . .(READ CHOICES)

Ho

Yes

D o n 't
Know

56 -6 9 V39
V40
V41
V42
V43
V44
V45

No
Rasocnse

a . E ld e r ly

2

70

V46

b. M e n ta lly t i l

2

71

V47

72-74 B lit

172

15. {HAND CARO 0 .1 5 — LIST OF AGENCIES, LEAVE WITH RESPONDENT FOR Q .1S-3S.
Cd 3
ALLOW RESPONDENT TIME TO SCAN. FOR EACH AGENCY NAMED, WRITE DOWN 10 NUMBER). 1-19
Looking a t t h is 1 1 s t o f agencies from th e community, I am going to ask you a
as 1
number o f q u e stio n s about d if f e r e n t kinds o f re la tio n s h ip s your agency may
have w ith o th e rs .
For each q u e s tio n , p lease g iv e me th e names, I f an y, o f
th e agencies t h a t b est answer th e q u e s tio n .
I f the question 1s In a p p ro p ria te
f o r yo u r agency, p lease t e l l me.
In o rd e r to save some tim e , please look
o v e r the e n t i r e l i s t o f agencies f i r s t , and then t e l l me th e agencies in v o lve d
1n th e r e la t io n s h ip .
(HAVE RESPONDENT READ NAME AND ID NUMBER TO YOU. YOU
CONFIRM NUMBER AS YOU RECORD IT BY READING AGENCY NAME BACK FROM YOUR CARD.
IF RESPONDENT MENTIONS AGENCY NOT ON THE L IS T , ENTER NAME.)
Now which agencies p ro v id e s e rv ic e s t h a t a re s im ila r to those your agency
provides?
(WRITE IN 10 NUMBER, RECORD ONLY THOSE SPONTANEOUSLY MENTIONED)
V48
V50
V49
V52
V51
V53
V54
c . ___
d.
e.
f . ______
g- _

h.

1

.

j . ___ _

k . ___ _

1.

__________

20 -33

KP
More cnan 7
ONLY
mentions
.7 7

O th e r (RECORD NAMES AS
OPEN E N D ) ............................ 6B
None...............................................go
No response.............................. 99
A ll (DO NOT ACCEPT AS ANSWER,
PROBE FOR TOP SEVEN)

V55
34-35

16. Which ao e n d e s g e n e r a lly serve the same c l i e n t g ro u p (s) th a t your
agency serves?
(W RITEJN ID NUMBER, RECORD ONLY THOSE SPONTANEOUSLY MENTIONED)
V57
V58
V59
V61
V60
V62
f . ______
g.
a. ______
b . ___ __
c . ___ _
d. ___
e.

h.

1.

J.

k.

KF
more tnan 7
3NLY
mentions .77

1.

■Other (RECORD NAMES AS
OPEN END)...............................SB
None.............................................. 90
No response.............................. 99
A ll (DO NOT ACCEPT AS ANSWER,
PROBE FOR TOP SEVEN)

36 -49

V63
50-51

17. Which agencies have In flu e n c e o ver what your agency does and the d ecisio ns
I t makes? (WRITE IN ID NUMBER, RECORD ONLY THOSE SPONTANEOUSLY MENTIONED)
V64
"6 5
V66
V67
V68
V69
V70
a.
b.
c . ______
d.
.
e . ______
f . _____

h.

1 .

J.

k.

1.

KP
iiore cnan“7
ONLY
mentions . 77
O ther (RECORD NAMES AS
OPEN END).............................. BB
Hone. . . . . . . . . .
.co
No response. . . . . . .
99
A ll (00 NOT ACCEPT AS ANSWER,
PROBE FOR TOP SEVEN)

52-65

¥71
65-57

, 6 8 - 7 4 31v

173

Cd 4

1-19 4S 1

_

18. Which a g en c ie s' good o p in io n 1s Im portant?
(WRITE IN 10 NUMBER. RECORD
ONLY THOSE SPONTANEOUSLY MENTIONED)
V72
.V73
V74
V75
V76
V77
V78
a . ______
b.
c.
_
d.
e.
f.
g ._______
20-33

h.

J.

k.

1.

X P '‘ More than 7
ONLY
mentions
.77
O th e r (RECORD NAMES AS
OPEN END)...............................88
None...............................................go
No response.................. .... . 99
A ll (0 0 NOT ACCEPT AS ANSWER,
PROBE FOR TOP SEVEN)

V79
34-35

19. Which agencies p ro vid e yo u r aaency w ith co o peratio n and support? (WRITE
IN ID NUMBER, RECORD ONLY THOSE SPONTANEOUSLY MENTIONED)
i/ac
vet
V82
V83
V85
V84
V86
a.
b.
d.
f.
e.

h.

1.

k.

1.

More tnan 7
KP
mentions
ONLY

36-49
.77

O ther (RECORD NAMES AS
OPEN END)...............................AS
None..............................................90
No response...............................99
A ll (DO NOT ACCEPT AS ANSWER,
PROBE FOR TOP SEVEN)

V87
50-51

2 0.

And, w ith which agencies has yo u r agency had some d ir e c t c o n f li c t during
th e p ast few years?
(WRITE IN ID NUMBER, RECORD ONLY THOSE SPONTANEOUSLY
.MENTIONED)
V88
v89
V90
V91
V92
V93
V94
a . _____
b.
c.
d.
_
a . ______
f. _ _ _
g. ______

1.

J.

k.

1.

KP' More than 7
.77
ONLY
mentions
O th e r (RECORD NAMES AS
OPEN END).............................. 38
None...............................................90
Ho response...............................99
A ll (00 NOT ACCEPT AS ANSWER,
PROBE FOR TOP SEVEN)

1

52-65
V95
66-67

63-74

3

174

21.

Cd 5
Vlhich agencies have th e most In flu e n c e a v e r d e c is io n s about human s e rv ic e s
. .
.
In t h is community?
(WRITE IN 10 NUMBER* RECORD ONLY THOSE SPONTANEOUSLY
1 - <9 a s I
V98

a.

b.

J.

h.

V99

V I 00

d.

e.

k.

1.

V101

V I 02

KP . Mare than 7
mentions
.77
ONLY

20 -33

- O ther (RECORD HAMES AS
OPEN E N O )............................ 88
None.............................................. 90
No response...............................99
A ll (0 0 NOT ACCEPT AS ANSWER,
PROBE FOR TOP SEVEN.

V I03
34-35

2 2 . Which agencies send people to y o u r agency fo r se rv ic es ?
(WRITE IN ID
NUMBER, RECORD ONLY THOSE SPONTANEOUSLY MENTIONED)
V I 04
V105
V I 06
V107
V10B
V109
V110
a.
b.
e.
f•
c.
d.
9—

TTT
V lll
h.
1ST

r~7)

r r r
V112

1.

1— i n -

V113

J.

1

V I 14
k.

1 -- S T

V I 15

r^Tvne

1. ____

VIt l

36 -49
50-63

KP More tnan
in 7
.7 7
ONLY mentions

n r

.

■Other (RECORD NAMES AS
OPEN ENO)...............................83
None. . . .
go
No response. . . . . . .
99
A l l (DO NOT ACCEPT AS ANSWER,
PROBE FOR TOP SEVEN)

22a.(ASIC FOR EACH AGENCY MENTIONED)
What percentage o f yo u r r e f e r r a l s came from th e agencies you mentioned?
(WRITE IN PERCENTS BELOW EACH ITEM IN Q .22)

64-65
V I 18
6 6 -7 4 B ll
Cd 6
1 -1 9 a s l

(WRITE IN ID NUMBER,
23. And which ones do you send people to f o r se rvices?
v R^QRO Ohl^THOSE SPONTANEOUSLY MENTIONED)
V I2 1
V123
V I 24
V I 25
V I 22
a.
f . ____
c.
e.
d. ___
V I 2P
h.

7 Vl!jr ~!T

V I 28

.

J.

1

r~sr

V I 29
k.

V I 30

1.

V I31

W

ONLY

34-47

V I 32

More tnan v
mentions

.77

■Other (RECORD NAMES AS
OPEN END).............................. 38
None...............................................90
No response...............................99
A l l (DO NOT ACCEPT AS ANSWER,
PROBE FOR TOP SEVEN)

(

23a.

20-33

(ASK FOR EACH AGENCY MENTIONED) What percentage o f your r e f e r r a ls da you
send to each agency mentioned?
(WRITE IN PERCENTS BELOW EACH ITEM IN Q .Z3)

48 -49
V I 33

175

0

2 4 . Which agencies have the most p re s tig e ?
SPONTANEOUSLY ME?TJONED)
vT£SE
VI35
V I 37
b.
d.
a.

1.

h.

J.

k.

(WRITE IN 10 NUMBER, RECORD ONLY
V I 38

V I 40

V I 39
f.

e.

KP
More than 7
.77
ONLY ' mentions

1.

•O th e r (RECORD NAMES AS
OPEN END)...............................83
None...........................
.9 0
No response...............................99
A ll (0 0 NOT ACCEPT AS ANSWER,
PROBE FOR TOP SEVEN)

25. W ith which agencies do you exchange o p in io n s . In fo rm a tio n and Ideas?

vttiiTE “ w r >“ • 5 i s r oNL\ m sE s™ i®
a . ______

b.

c.

1.

J.

d.

k.

usu w

e.

f.

01

2 6 . W ith which agencies 1s your agency In v o lve d on community committees and
p lann ing tas k fo rces?
(WRITE IN ID NUMBER, RECORD ONLY THOSE SPONTANEOUSLY
MENTIONED)
V? 50
V I 51 ,
V I52
V153
V154
V155
V156
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
9-

J.

1.

6 6 -7 4 B lk
Cd 7
1 -1 9 a s l

,»■

•O th e r (RECORD NAMES AS
OPEN ENO). . . . . . .
80 .
None.
............................. 90
No response............................... 99
A ll (0 0 NOT ACCEPT AS ANSWER,
PROBE FOR TOP SEVEN)

h.

V I 41
64-65

g. _____

KP More than 7
,77
ONLY mentions

1.

50-63

20-33

VI49
34-35

36 -4 9

KP More than 7
ONLY mentions
.77
•O th e r (RECORD NAMES AS

OPEN ENO)............. 88
None.............................................. go
No response.
......................59
A ll (0 0 NOT ACCEPT AS ANSWER,
PROBE FOR TOP SEVEN)

f

V I 57

50-51

176

10
Z7. Which agencies does y o u r agency r e l y on to d e l iv e r yo u r own s e rv ic e s /
programs to c lie n ts ?
(WRITE IK 10 NUMBER. RECORD ONLY THOSE SPONTANEOUSLY
MENTIONED)
V I 58
V I 59
V I 60
V I 61
V I 62
V I 63
V I 64
a.
—
*>• _ _ _ »
c*
d,
e.
f.
g ._______

h.

1.

k.

j.

Cd 7

KP
More than 7
ONLY
mentions
.77

1.

52 -65
•O th e r (RECORD NAMES AS
OPEN ENO)...............................88
None............................................... 90
No response...............................99
A l l (00 NOT ACCEPT AS
ANSWER, PROSE FOR TOP SEVEN)

2 9 . Whlcn agencies a r e most l i k e l y Co g e t money from th e same sources as yo u r
Vfggncy? ( ^
IN I D ^ B E R , R E f l ^ ONLY
S P O N T A ^ S L Y MEN^ONED)
b.

c.

d.

e.

1.

J.

k.

1-.

f.

V I65
66-67
68-74 81 k
Cd 8
1-19 as 1

g.

KP More than 7
ONLY mentions .7 7
-O th e r (RECORD NAMES AS
OPEN END)...............................88
None.
.............................90
No response...............................99
A ll (DO NOT ACCEPT AS
ANSWER, PROBE FOR TOP SEVEN)

20-33

V I 73
34 -35

2 9 . We are In te r e s te d 1n knowing about any in fo rm al c o o p e ra tiv e r e la t i o n ­
ships your agency has w ith o th e r agencies In th is comnunlty (HAND
YELLOW CARD).
T h is card l i s t s some o f th e conroon types o f c o o p e ra tiv e
re la tio n s h ip s s o c ia l s e rv ic e s agencies develop on an in fo rm a l b a s is . By
Info rm al r e la tio n s h ip s we mean r e la tio n s h ip s th a t have no form al b a s i s . . .
th a t I s , th e re I s n ' t a w r i t t e n agreement o r c o n tr a c t, pro bably v e ry l i t t l e , .
I f an y, money changes hands and most o f th e problems t h a t a r is e o r changes
th a t a re made are worked o u t by mutual ad ju s tm e n t. Using the l i s t on
th e y e llo w card as examples o f In te r-a g e n c y c o o p e ra tio n , p lease I d e n t if y
any agencies w ith which yo u r agency works on any s o rt o f In fo rm al c o o p e ra tiv e
b a s is . (AFTER RESPONDENT IDENTIFIES AGENCIES, PROBE TO REVIEW COMPREHENSIVE­
NESS OF LIST USING TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS IDENTIFIED ON YELLOW CARD .

«fHp)

10 NUI

V I 76
c.

V I 77

V I 78
e.

V I 79

V180

f.
36 -49

J.

mentions
-O th e r (RECORO NAMES AS
OPEN END)...............................aa
None............................................... SO
No response............................... 99
A ll (00 NOT ACCEPT AS
ANSWER, PROBE FOR TOP SEVEN)

V I 81
50-51

177

11
Now, we w ant to ask you about ag en cies w ith which yo u r o rg a n iz a tio n has
any k in d o f form al c o o p e ra tiv e r e la t io n s h ip s .
(HAND BLUE CARD — TYPES
OF FORMAL COOPERATIVE RELATIONSHIPS. USE FOR 0 .3 0 -3 3 }
3 0 a.A re th e re any agencies you run any
No (GO TO Q .3 1 ) ...........................1
typ e o f program fo r?
Yes...................................................... 2

30b.W hat a re th e agencies f o r w hich you run programs?
BELOW)

Cd 9
1 -1 9 as 1

20

V I 86

(RECORD IN COLUMN ONE

30c. (ASK FOR EACH AGENCY NAMED IN Cl.30b)
What Is the program?
(RECORQ IN COLUMN TWO’ BELOW)

30d.W hat o th e r ag en cies a re In v o lv e d 1n th e program?
(RECORD IN COLUMN THREE BELOW)

30 e .U h a t person should we c o n ta c t f o r d e t a i l s about th e way I t operates?
RECORD TN COLUMN FOUR BELOW)

30 f.W h ere co u ld we c o n ta c t them?
(RECORD IN COLUMN FIVE BELOW -

1 . (30b)
Agency ID o r Name

Program 7131^6
o r Topic

RECORD NAME/PLACE TO CONTACT)
3 . (3Qd)
O th e r Agencies
In v o lve d

s .(3 0 f)
Name/Place
to Contact

V194

' ____________ V187
_____________ V188

_______

_ M 30e)
, Person
to C ontact

V195

vi ag

V196

V I 90

V I 97

V I 91

V I98
V199
35-Afl

21-34
More than 6
m e n tio n s
77
(CONTINUE RECORDING
2EL0H)

V193

More than 6
m e n tio n s

4 9 -7 4 B lk
77

(CONTINUE RECORDING
BELOW)

V200

178

12

Cd 10
1 -1 9 as 1

USE BLUE CARD
31 a .A re th e re any agencies t h a t run
programs f o r yo u r agency?

No (GO TO Q . 3 2 ) , ........................ 1

j - — Yes.................................................. 2

20 V201

31b.W hat a re th e names o f th e agencies t h a t run programs f o r yo u r agency?
(ENTER 10 NUMBERS OR NAMES - RECORD IN COLUMN ONE BaOH)

(ASK FOR EACH AGENCY NAMED)
31c.W hat Is the program? (RECORD IN COLUMN TWO BELOW)

31d.What o th e r agencies are In v o lv e d 1n th e program?
BELOW)

(RECORD IN COLUMN THREE

31t.W h a t person should we c o n ta c t f o r d e t a i l s about th e way I t operates?
(RECORD IN COLUMN FOUR BELOW)

3 If.W h e re co u ld we c o n ta c t them?
(RECORD IN COLUMN FIVE BELOW — RECORD NAME/PUCE TO CONTACT)

1 .0 1 b )
Aaency ID o r Name

Program ^Name
o r T op ic

V 31d>
O th e r Agencies
In v o lv e d

V202

V209

V203

V210

V204

V211

V205

V212

V206

V213

5 - (31 f )
Name/Place
to C ontact

B M 3T<0
Person
to C o n tact

*

V207
21-J4
Mere than 6
m entio ns............ 77
(CONTINUE RECORDING
BELOW)
V208

<

V214
35 -4 8
More than 6
m entlcn s.............. 77
(CONTINUE RECORDING
BELOW)
V215

49 -74 31k

179

Cd 11
1-T9 as 1

13

USE BLUE CARD

32a.How about any j o i n t programs . . .
No
(GO TO Q .3 3 ) ..................1
t mean programs you o p e ra te w ith a n o th e r____ Yes.................................................. 2
agency.
Is t h is agency In v o lve d In any
form al J o V .t programs?

32b.W hat a re th e names o f th e agencies 1n th e J o in t program?
NUMBERS OR NAMES — RECORD LEFT IH FIRST COLUMN BELOW}

20
V216

(ENTER ID

(ASK FOR EACH AGENCY NAMED)
32c. What 1s th e program?
(RECORD IN COLUMN TWO BELOW)

32d.What o th e r aoencles are In v o lve d In th e program?
BELOW)

(RECORD IN COLUMN THREE

32e.W hat person should we c o n ta c t fo r d e t a ils about th e way 1 t operates?
(RECORD IN COLUMN FOUR BELOW)

3 If.W h e re co u ld we c o n ta c t them?
(RECORD IN COLUMN FIVE BELOW — RECORD NAME/PUCE TO CONTACT)

l.C 3 2 h )
Aaencv ID o r Name

2 . (32C )
Program Name
o r Tonic

3- (32d)
O th e r Agencies
In v o lv e d

V217

V224

V218

V225

V219

V226

V220

V227

V221

V228

V222
2 1 -3 4

4

_
4 .0 2 a )
Person
to C o n tact

5. (3 2 f)
Name/Place
to C o n tact

V229
35 -48

•

More than 6
m e n tio n s............77
(CONTINUE RECORDING
BELOW)
V223

More than 6
m entio ns..........77
(CONTINUE RECORDING
BELOW)
V230

* 9 -7 4 gjf;

180

14

Cd 12

USE BLUE CARO
1 -1 9 as 1
33'a .H c v about any o th e r ty p e s .o f form al c o o p e ra tiv e r e la tio n s h ip s l i s t e d .on
th e card • • such as fo rm a liz e d arrangements to share s t a f f o r f a c i l i t i e s
o r in fo rm a tio n about c lie n t s o r any o th e r form al r e la t io n s h ip s .
Is th is
agency in v o lv e d In any programs r e la t e d to those top1cs7

Ho {GO TO Q.34)..................... 1

20

Tes......................................................2

33b.What a re the names o f th e agencies?
RECORD LEFT IN FIRST COLUMN BELOW)

V231

{ENTER ID NUMBERS OF NAMES —

(ASK FOR EACH AGENCY NAMED)
33c.W hat is th e program?
{RECORD IN COLUttl TWO BELOW)

33d.What o th e r agencies a re In v o lve d In the program?
BELOW)

(RECORD IN COLUMN THREE

'3io .W h a t person should we c o n ta c t f o r d e t a i l s about th e way I t operates?
{RECORD IN COLUMN FOUR BELOW)
33f.W here cn u ld we c o n ta c t them7
(RECORD IN COLUMN FIVE BELOW — RECORD NAME/PLACE TO CONTACT)
2.

1.

Agency ID o r Name

Program
(33^1

Name
o r T oo ic

{33c]'t
3 - (3 3 d )
O th e r Agencies
In v o lv e d

_____________ V232

_____________V239

_____________ V233

V240

V234

V241

V235

V242

V236

V243
V244

V237

“ ZT3T

_ “ 3E-40

More than 6
m entio ns
77
(CONTINUE RECORDING
BELOW)
V23S

(

TAKE BACK BLUE CARD

More than 6
m entio ns
77
CONTINUE RECORDING
BELOW)

V245

Persofi3;3d*
to C o n ta c t

Hame/?1 ace
to C o n tact

181

15
Cd 12
34.

Which agencies compete w ith yours f o r resources?
V246

V247

b.

a.

V248

V249

V251

V250
f.

e.

d.

c.

(RECORD ID NUHBERS)
V252

949 -6 2

J.

1.

h.

KF
More tnan 7
DULY
m entions

1.

It.

.77

•O th e r (RECORD HAKES AS
OPEN EflO)............................... 58
None. .
.................................. 90
No response............................... 99
A l l (DO NOT ACCEPT AS ANSWER,
PROBE FOR TOP SEYEIl)

V253
53-64
d 5-74 5
Cd 13
1 -1 3 as 1

35.

Which agencies compete w ith your agency f o r c lie n ts ?
V2S4

V255

V256

a.

b.

e.

h . ___ _

1 . ___ _

j - ___

_

V258

V257
d.

k.

e.

___

CRSCORD ID NUMBERS)
V259

f. —

1. ____

V260
9- _

KP
More tnan 7
ONLY
m entions

20-33
.77

O th e r (RECORD NAMES AS
OPEN E N D ) .............................aa
None..............................................>90
No response................................99
A ll (DO NOT ACCEPT AS ANSWER,
PROBE FOR TOP SEVEN)

(TAKE BACK Q.TS LIST OF AGENCIES CARD)

34 -35
V261

m
Cd ST
1-19 as 1

16

3 6 ; Here 1s a l i s t o f persons, groups and th ln g sw trlch may have an In flu e n c e
o ver d e c is io n s In yo u r agency.
(HAND CARO 0 .3 6 TO RESPONDENT). As I
read each type o f d e c is io n , p lease t e l l me th e persons,
groups o r th in g s o th e r than y o u r s e lf .w h ich most In flu e n c e t h a t d e c is io n .
I w i l l reco rd th e numoers from yo u r c a rd .
(.IF RESPONDENT NAMES "OTHER,M
RECORD AS OPEN END)
a . O ectslons In v o lv in g agency's conrnltment o f money and r e la te d resources
such as s t a f f , equipm ent, use o f b u ild in g , e t c .
(RECORD HOUSERS)
VZ62
V263
V264
V265
V266
V267
V26B
V269
1-35
b.

D ecisio ns about changing o r m o d ifyin g e x is t in g programs o r s e rv ic e s .

V27O(REC0RD^

‘f ERS' VZ72

VZ73

V274

V275

V276

V277
1-50

1 -6 5
O eclslo n s about p ro v id in g new o r d if f e r e n t s e rv ic e s o r programs.
(HECORO NUMBERS
V2B6
V287
V28B
V289
V290
V291
V292

16-74 31k

d.

Cd w / X
-19 as i

V293

20-35
e.

D ecisio ns about s e rv in g d i f f e r e n t o r a d d itio n a l groups o f p eople.
(RECORD NUMBERS)
V294
V295
VZ96 ■
V297
V298
V299
V300
V301

f.

36 -50

D e cisio n s about seeking funds from new o r d i f f e r e n t sources o r seeking money

V30z1n tt.

^ORO

^

^

^

51-65
D e cisio n s about c o o p e ra tiv e proorams o r s e rv ic e s o r j o i n t programs w ith
o th e r a e e n c le s .
(RECORD NUMBERS)
V310
V311
V312
V313
V314
V315
V316
V317

6 5 -7 4 J T

g.

CdW/;”
1 >19 as 1
2 0 -3 5

h.
D ecisio n s co n cerning a d m in is tr a tiv e and p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f , e . g . , d ecid in g
. . . . promot e o r demote, h ir e o r d isch arge them.
(RECORD NUMBERS)
V318
V319
V320
V321
V322
V323
V324
V325
3 6 -5 0
1.

D ecisio ns concerning p a ra p ro fe s s lo n a l and c l e r i c a l s t a f f , e . g . , d ec id in g
to promote o r demote, h ir e o r disch arge them.
(RECORD NUMBERS)
V326
V327
V328
V329
V330
V331
V332
V333
51-65
j.

D ecisio n s about w orking c o n d itio n s and agency procedures such as work lo a d ,
jo o c la s s i f i c a t i o n s o r o th e r ru le s and re g u la tio n s about th e workings o f

V 3 3 4 the 49aG 5 &

Nl;MEE^ 3 7

V338

V339

V340

6 6 ;7 4 J '
Cd f t ” ,
-1 9 as ’

V341
20 -3 5

183

Cd 16

17

37. C o n sid e rin g th e e l d e r ly In th is com nunlty, do s e n io r c it iz e n s have any
s p e c ia l s e rv ic e needs? (ASK AS OPEN END) What a re these?
V342

V347

V343

V348

V344

V349

V345
V346

3 6 - 5 9 V350

60-61
KP ONLY
More than 8 mentions

a. Which o f these a re th e th re e most p ressin g needs?
(CIRCLE ABOVE TOP THREE NEEDS IDENTIFIED 0Y RESPONDENT)
CO NOT PROBE FOR NEEDS_________________
___________
38.

39.

V351
V352
V353

From your p e rs p e c tiv e ., how e f f e c t i v e Is p lann ing f o r s e rv ic e s f o r th e e ld e r ly
In t h is comnunlty?
(ASK AS OPEN END. DO NOT READ RESPONSES BUT CIRCLE
ONE CLOSEST TO OPINION RESPONDENT GIVES)
Not e f f e c t i v e .............................1
S l ig h t ly e f f e c t i v e .................2
Somewhat e f f e c t i v e ................. 3
Very e f f e c t i v e .......................... 4
E xtrem ely e f f e c t i v e ...............5
D o n 't Know................................... 8
_________________________ No response
9

62-70

71V3S4

And what Is y o u r o p in io n about p la n n in g f o r s e rv ic e s f o r th e m e n ta lly
tro u b le d o r m e n ta lly 111.
How e f f e c t i v e Is 1t?
(ASK AS OPEN END. DO
NOT READ RESPONSES BUT CIRCLE ONE CLOSEST TO OPINION RESPONDENT GIVES)
Not e f f e c t i v e .......................... 1
S l ig h t ly e f f e c t i v e ............... 2
Somewhat e f f e c t i v e ............... 3
Very e f f e c t i v e ...................... .4
E xtrem ely e f f e c t i v e .............S
D o n 't know................................. 8
No response............................ . 9

72 V35S

184

Cd 16

18

I want to thank you f o r p a r t ic ip a t in g In t h ls In te r v ie w . The research
team from Wayne S ta te U n iv e r s ity and M ichigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity does need
some a d d itio n a l In fo rm a tio n .
In o rd e r to conserve your tim e , we'd l i k e
to le a v e w ith you a q u e s tio n n a ire which you,can f i l l o u t w ith in th e next
few days and m all back In t h is envelope to Market Opinion Research. Tour
co o p e ra tio n w i l l be g r e a t ly a p p re c ia te d . O f c o u rs e , th e In fo rm a tio n In the
q u e s tio n n a ire w i l l a ls o be c o n fid e n tia l j u s t as th e In fo rm a tio n from our
In te r v ie w 1s.
(LEAVE PART I I QUESTIONNAIRE WITH ENVELOPE)
This study p r o je c t a ls o needs some In fo rm a tio n about t h is agency's c l i e n t s ,
s t a f f in g p a tte rn s and some f in a n c ia l In fo rm a tio n . Is th e re a fin a n c ia l o f f i c e r
who should p ro v id e t h is in fo rm a tio n , o r are you th e person o r Is th e re someone
e ls e who should p ro vid e 1t?
(RECORD NAME OF PERSON WHO SHOULD PROVIDE
CLIENT, STAFF, FINANCIAL INFORMATION)

I'm going to ask you to g iv e t h is f i n a l q u e s tio n n a ire to (NAME RECORDED ABOVE).
H e re 's an envelope f o r m a ilin g 1 t back to Wayne S ta te U n iv e r s ity .
(LEAVE
PART I I I QUESTIONNAIRE AND ENVELOPE)

4 0. Race:

4 1 . Sex:

(3Y OBSERVATION)

(BY OBSERVATION)

W h ite
1
Non-wh1te........................................2

,,

H a le ...................................................1

fo"''.................2

*51?

75-76 Cd #
77 -80 Job *

1

APPENDIX A-2

List of Influences on Social Service Agencies

185

1
SOUUCI.S 01 I H n tlLIIM
i

Ul. ASSISIAIir Oil A5SUC1A1C UIHECTUHS

'*

I)'/. HOAKU Oil liOVclUMIIU UUUY OF AtiEHUY
(11. ELLIUlAL OU ILCtlHirAC STAFF
04.

U.IEHT CnUUPS

US. CUMMI1IIIIY UllOUl'S (SUCH AS LAIIUII, HLLMilltUS,
H1ISIHL55, WOHEH’ S MUIUItlTY)
00.

ULMIUMLIIT UHIMII.AII5

-

0 /.

IHIHXTUIIS UF O llllll AliEHCItS

;

Hit. I IIUItUAl IUIIS
(10.

LiltlLltAl.. I'UULIC

III. GOVLIIHHLNT OFFICIALS (ANY LEVEL)
II.

LAOS AND llUilll.A) II1IIS

I i’ . LllliUt ECIILLUH ritlll'ESSIUHAL STAIT
1.1. IKHII.Y
U.

1’AIIA I'UUI tSStUKAI. STAFF

Hi.

I'l ttSUllllEL OF LOCAL 064^
_ ___
llltliAHIMriOHS AHU/UU
I'ltOUI.CH-OlllEMTLI) CUIYHTILLS

III.

PHOIESSIOHAL STAHIIAHOS.

i/.

m ijuiiilklhis or fuiitmiti our.ah i/aiinns

III.

SLIIlOIl I'llOl ISSIOHAL STA11

10. Sl'UIISOItir. OltliAMI/AT IOil lilt PAULIII AlllNt'.Y
?n.

sfai

r nr ( H u m

aufhcifs.

l

APPENDIX A-3

Survey Instrument —

Part B:

Additional Agency Head Perceptio

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY iajt uwuno . mchkuh « ui
W<M KttKd tnm cH iduau • luuur hail

Label goes

1-15
ID 16-19

here

P art I I
In te ra g e n c y D e liv e r y o f M ental H e a lth
To th e Aging

Agency

In o rd e r to conserve tim e , we have d e v is e d t h is s e lf-a d m in is te r e d q u e s tio n n a ire
As w ith the In t e r v ie w , y o u r answers w i l l be kept c o m p le te ly c o n f id e n t ia l;
th ey w i l l be punched on to cards and the d ata a n a ly ze d as a group.
Ho person
n or o r g a n iz a tio n w i l l e v e r be I d e n t i f i e d by name In any r e p o r t.
T h is p a r t o f th e In te r v ie w w i l l ta k e about f o r t y - f i v e m in u te s 'o f y o u r tim e .
P lease f e e l f r e e to. ccnuent on o u r q u e stio n s as feedback from e x p e rts who
a c t u a l ly d e l iv e r th e lo c a l s e rv ic e s 1s c r u c ia l to o u r stu d y.
Thank you In advance f o r a l l th e h e lp you have g iv en u s. We s in c e r e ly
a p p re c ia te y o u r tim e and th o u g h tfu l In p u ts .
When th e f u l l study Is com pleted,
we s h a ll send you a copy as a token o f o u r a p p r e c ia tio n .
S in c e r e ly y o u rs ,

A .
P h il i p M. M arcus, D ir e c to r
S o c ia l S cience Research Bureau
M ichigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity

^

6 L

U

1 & L -

Ann W. Sheldon, Ph.D .
A s s is ta n t P ro fe s s o r
W ayn e.S tate U n iv e r s ity

187

2

Cd 1

P art I I

1,

I f you could a llo c a t e funds In th is community, what p ro p o rtio n o f money
c u r r e n t ly a v a ila b le f o r human s e rv ic e s would you a llo c a t e d if f e r e n t l y ?
(CHECK ONE]

os
105
205
305
405
505

Z.

1 1 60S
70S
80S
‘ ' SOS
' * 1005

For your o r g a n iz a tio n , how Im p o rtan t Is p a r t ic ip a t io n 1n sp e c ia l programs o r
s e rv ic e s to g e t a d d itio n a l funds through c o n tr a c ts , g r a n ts . T i t l e XX c o n tra c ts ,
and th e lik e ?
(CHECK ONE)
Not Im o o rtan t
S lig h t ly im p o rtan t
' Somewhat Im p o rta n t
Very im p o rtan t
Very g r e a tly im p ortan t

3.

And, how Im p o rta n t 1s p a r t ic ip a t io n
se rv ic es ?
(CHECK ONE)

1
2
3
4
5

22 V359

In c o o p e ra tiv e o r c o lla b o r a tiv e programs/

Not Im p o rtan t
S l i g h t l y Im p o rta n t
Somewhat Im p o rtan t
Very Im p o rtan t
.
V ery g r e a t ly im p o rtan t

1
2
3
4
S

23 V360

To what e x te n t a re the p la n s , p o lic ie s a n d /o r procedures o f yo u r agency
d eterm ined by any p a re n t o r sponsoring agency ( i . e . , th e n a tio n a l agency,
s ta te o r fe d e r a l d ep artm en ts, lo c a l agency re s p o n s ib le f o r fu nd ing your
agency, e t c . )
(CHECK ONE SOX)
Not a t a l l
S l ig h t e x te n t
Some e x te n t
G rea t e x te n t
Very g r e a t e x te n t

1
2
3
4
5

24 V361

How much c o m p e titio n e x is ts between yo u r agency and o th e rs f o r resources fn
t h is community? (CHECK ONE SOX)
No c o m p etitio n a t a l l
51 tg h t co m p etitio n
Some co m p etitio n
G rea t co m p etitio n
Very g re a t co m p etitio n

25 V362

188

Cd 2
1 -1 9 as 1
6.

From th e l i s t In th e box below , s e le c t as many groups as a p p ro p ria te to
t e l l us what s t a f f r e g u la r ly p a r t i c i p a t e In d e c is io n making ab o ut:
(WRITE
NUMBER FOR EACH LINE)
Groups P a r t ic ip a t in g

D e cisio n s

V405 V406 V407 V408 V409 V410 V411 V412
__________________________________ _
V413 V414 V415 V416 V417 V418 V419 V420

D eveloping new p o l i c i e s , plans and
' procedures

Changing p o lic ie s , plans and procedures
V421 V422 V423 V424 V425 V425 V427 V428
Seeking new sources o f funds
V429 V430 V431 V432 V433 V434 V435 V436
Adopting d if f e r e n t pro gram s/services
V437 V43B V439 V440 V441 V442 V443 V444
S ervin g d if f e r e n t c l i e n t groups
V445 V44E V447 V448 V449 V450 V451 V452
P a r t ic ip a t in g 1n c o lla b o r a t iv e o r
c o o p e ra tiv e p ro je c ts w ith o th e r agencies
V453 V454 V455 V456 V457 V458 V459 V460
______

Comm itting th e o rg a n iz a tio n

SELECT APPROPRIATE GROUPS FROM THIS LIST
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
S.

t

Board o r governing body o f agency
D ir e c to r
A s s is ta n t o r a s s o c ia te d ir e c t o r
Department u n i t heads
S e n io r p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f
Lower echelon p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f
Para p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f
C l e r ic a l/t e c h n ic a l s t a f f

20-75
76 Cd #
77-80 Job #

189

Cd I

7.

To what e x te n t does your agency use w r it t e n c r i t e r i a f o r each o f the fo llo w in g ?
(CHECK ONE 30X FOR EACH ITEM)
1

2

Not
At A tl

8.

a.

C lie n t In ta k e

b.

H andling c l ie n t s

c.

Managing v o lu n te e rs

d.

Promotion o f s t a f f

C]
C3
Cl
C3

e.

D is c ip lin e o f s t a f f

f.

Work o r a c tlc e s (hours o f work,
work lo a d , re p o rtin g procedures)

3
S lig h t
E x te n t

4

Some
E xte n t

G rea t
E xte n t

5
Very
G reat
E xte n t

C3
C3
C3
C3
C1

[ ]

C3
C3
C3
C3
C3

3
3
3
3

C3
C3
C3
C3
C3

C3
C3
C3

3
3
3

C3
C3
C3

C3
C3
C3

32V36S

C3

3

C3

C3

34V371

9*

Job performance

h.

R e fe r r a ls and fo llo w -u p

C3
C.3
C3

1.

R e la tio n s h ip s w ith o th e r
o rg a n iz a tio n s

C3

26V363
Z7V36;
2BV36E
29V3EF
30V367

31V36S

33V37C

How much does your agency use permanent s t a f f cc o m itte es f o r each o f the
fo llo w in g ?
(CHECK ONE BOX FOR EACH ITEM)
1
2
3
4
5
Very
Not
G rea t
G reat
A t A ll
S H a h t ly Some Amount Amount

S a la ry changes

C3
C3
C3
C3
C3

C3
C3
C3
C3
C3

C3
C3
C3
C3
C3

C3
C3
C3
C3
C3

C3
C3
C3
C3
C3

Review o f s t a f f d is c ip lin e
(g rie v a n c e procedures)

1

3

C3

t 3 C3

C3

C1
C3

[3
C-]

C3 C3
C3 C3

C3
C3

a.

A llo c a tio n o f funds

b.

Program e v a lu a tio n

c.

Long range p lann ing

d.

Personnel d ecis io n s

e.
f.

9h.

Review and d e te rm in a tio n o f
p r io r itie s
Program development

3SV37.'
36V37137V37A
3SV375
39V37C

40V37"

41V37
42V37:

190

5
<

9.

How much c o m p e titio n fs th e re w ith in yo u r agency?

2
S lig h t
Compe­
titio n

3
Some
Compe­
tit io n

4
G rea t
Compe­
titio n

C]
13

C3
C3

C3
£ 3

C3
£3

43 V380

C3
C3

C3
C3

C3
C3

E3

45 V382

E 3

*6 V333

Among departm ents o r work u n its

C]

b.

Among the p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f

n

c.

Among board members o r members
o f th e a d v is o ry cc rn n ittee

C3

Among lo w e r le v e l

c ]

s ta ff

(CHECK. ONE BOX FOR EACH ITEM)

1
Ho
Compe­
tit io n .
a.

d.

>0*

Cd 1

S
Very
G rea t
C om oetitlon

44 V381

Hew much d if fe r e n c e o f o p in io n e x is ts between the a d m in is tr a tiv e and
p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f in yo u r agency about each o f th e fo llo w in g ?
(CHECK OHS BOX FOR EACH ITEM)

1
None
At A ll
a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

2

3

4

s

Very
Some
S lig h t
G reat
G reat
D iffe r e n c e D iffe r e n c e D iffe re n c e D iffe re n c e

Fund r a is in g and seeking g ra n ts
and c o n tra c ts

C3

C3

C3

C o o rd in a tin g s e rv ic e s w ith
o th e r agencies

C3

C3

e3

.

C3

[ ]

V3B4

£3

C]

V385

A llo c a tin g money and o th e r r e reso urces ( e . g . , s t a f f , eq u ip ­
m ent, space f o r s e rv ic e s or
programs.

t3

C3

C3

C3

[ ]

V386

M o d ifyin g e x is t in g programs o r
s e rv ic e s

E3

C3

C3

C3

C3

V387

£3
C3

E3
E3

£

3
C3

C3
C3

C]
C3

V388

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

Changing s e rv ic e o r program
p r io r itie s

V

f.

S ervin g new c l i e n t groups

9-

Personnel p o lic ie s and procedures
( e . g . , how promotions are d e t e r m ineo, work lo a d , jo b c l a s s i f i ­
c a t io n s , s a la ry in c re a s e s , e t c . ) [ ]

V389

V390

47-53

191

Cd 1

11.

Some coirm unltles a re t r y in g to p ro v id e s p e c ia l p re v e n tiv e s e rv ic e s f o r the
aging and s e rv ic e s f o r th e e ld e r ly who a re m e n ta lly Im p a ire d .
In yo u r o p in io n ,
how much o f a problem Is each o f th e fo llo w in g In p ro v id in g s e rv ic e s f o r th e
e ld e r ly ?
(CHECK ONE BOX FOR EACH ITEM)

1

2

3

4

5

Very
No
S lig h t
Some
G rea t
G reat
Problem Problem Problem Problem Problem

c

C3
C3

E
I

C3
E3

E3
C3

55

There is a low ccsmwnlty re c o g n i­
tio n o f th e need f o r such s e rv ic e s

c

E3

C

E3

E3

56 V393

People fin d i t d i f f i c u l t to work
w ith th e e ld e r ly

c

C3

C

C3

E3

57

V394

H ig h e r p r i o r i t y Is g iv en to needs o f .
p ro d u c tiv e members o f th e
co im u n lty

c

C3

E

C3

E3

53

V39E

T ra n s p o rta tio n Is u n a v a ila b le o r
c o m p licated

t

C3

E

E3

EI

59

V396

People d i s l i k e being In v o lve d w ith
th e e ld e r ly

c

[3

E3

C3

60

V397

There a re few rewards to any agencies
t h a t p ro v id e such s e rv ic e s

c

C3

e

E3

E3

61

V398

c

C3

[

E3

E3

62 V39S

B e lie fs th a t not much can be done to
h elp the e ld e r ly who a re m e n ta lly
im p aired

c

C3

c

E3

C3

63

V4QC

F in d in g lo c a tio n s f o r se rv in g the
e l d e r ly

E

c

E

c

E3
E3

V401

S p ec ia l s e rv ic e s a re too c o s tly

E3
E3

64

1.

C3
C3

65

V4Q2

m.

E ld e r ly a re not an e f f e c t i v e
pressure group

c

C3

E

C 3

E3

£6

vdo:

O ld er people f e a r loss o f Indepen­
dence and d ig n ity I f th ey use
s e rv ic e s

c

C3

E

C 3

E3

67

V4Q-

a.

S p e c ia lly tr a in e d s t a f f Is re q u ire d

c

b.

Funds a re n o t a v a ila b le

c.

d.

e.

f.

9-

h.
1.

J.

k.

n.

Host people who a re o ld e r do n o t need
s p e c ia l s e rv ic e s (need Is not g re a t)

. c

54 V391
V39Z

68-75 B U
75 Cd 4
77-30 Job ■*

192

Cd 3
1 -1 9 as 1
12.

To what e x te n t do each o f th e fo llo w in g a f f e c t th e coordina
o r agency c o lla b o ra tio n ?
(CHECK ONE BOX OR EACH I H)

on o f s e rv ic e s

3
Some
E x te n t

4
G reat
E x te n t

C]
C]

C]
C3

Cl
C3

1
]

;

C]

C3

E3

]

22 V463

S t a f f l i k e to work in c o lla b o r a tiv e
programs

[3

ci

[i

]

23 V464

P re v io u s ly unhelped c l i e n t s
re c e iv e
s e rv ic e s

C]

C]

C3

]

24 V465

Coimsunity reso urces a r e u t i l i z e d
in a b e t t e r way

[]

C]

C3

]

25 V466

We cann o t g e t c o o p e ra tio n from
' o th e r ag en cies

C]

C3

C3

3

26 V4S7

C o lla b o ra tio n would mean o ur .
f a c i l i t i e s would be o ver-used
by o th e r ag en c ie s' c l i e n t s

E]

C3

El

]

27 V46B

O th e r ag en cies do n o t need the
the s e rv ic e s we p ro vid e

C3

C3

E3

]

28 V469

1s e a s ie r to expand yo u r own
agency th an to work o u t j o i n t
programs w ith o th e r o rg a n i­
z a tio n s

[]

C3

C3

3

29 V470

Saves o u r agency1s money and s t a f f
tim e

C]

C3

C3

]

30 V471

1,.

We la c k c o n tro l o ver o th e r agency's
s ta ff

C]

C3

C3

3

31 V472

m.

C o o rd in a tio n h elps us serve o u r
c lie n ts b e tte r

r]

E3

[3

3

32 V473

Our agency re c e iv e s new funds f o r
c o lla b o r a tin g

C3

C3

[3

;]

33 V474

C3
t ]

C3
C3

C3
C3

3
3

2
Not
C o o rd in a tio n /C o lla b o ra tio n G e n e ra lly
a.

C o lla b o ra tio n ta k e s to o much tim e

b ..

F in a n c ia l co s ts a re to o g re a t

c.

It

d.

e.

f.

9-

h.

i.

k.

it.

o.

p.

It

is d i f f i c u l t f o r s t a f f from
d i f f e r e n t agencies to work
to g e th e r

C o lla b o ra tio n means o th e r agencies
may nave too much say o v e r how
th in g s a re done in t h is agency
Good f o r p u b lic r e la t io n s

1

S lig
E x te n t

Very G rea t
E xte n t

34 V475
35V476

193

13.

How much o f a problem to yo u r agency Is each o f th e fo llo w in g ?
{CHECK ONE BOX FOR EACH ITEM)
1
2
3
4
5
No Problem S l ig h t
Some
G rea t Very G reat
A t A ll
Problem Problem Problem Problem

b.

c.

d.

e.

C3

3

C3

3

C3

36

V477

P o lic ie s
Mental
Board,
H e a lth

E3

3

C3

3

C3

37

V47E

P o lic ie s and a c tio n s o f lo c a l
w e lfa r e o r s o c ia l s e rv ic e
departm ent

C3

3

C3

36

V479

P o lic ie s and a c tio n s o f lo c a l
a rea o f f i c e on aging

C3'

3

C3

3

E3

39

V4B0

C3
[3

3
3

C3
C1

3
3

E3
E3

40

V481

41

V4B2

t3
C3

3
3

C3
C3

3
3

C3
E3

42

V483

43

V4Q4

C3
E3

1
i

C3
C3

3
3

C3
C3

44

V48E

45

V486

and a c tio n s o f lo c a l
H e a lth Board (A c t 646
O hio; Ccomunlty Mental
Board, M ichigan}

P o lic ie s and a c tio n s o f lo c a l
U n ited Way

f.

A ttitu d e s o f o th e r agencies

g.

C o o rd in atio n o f s e rv ic e s w ith
e th e r o rg a n iz a tio n s

h.

F in a n c ia l shortages

1.

In te g r a tio n o f s e rv ic e s
th e co n nu n lty

J.

(

L im ite d range o f s e rv ic e s
1n eomnunity to meet p e o p le 's
needs

In

A ttitu d e s o f comnunlty le a d e rs

i—i

a.

194

Cd 3
14.

What changes do you th in k a re needed f o r each o f th e fo llo w in g In th is
commmlty?
(CHECK ONE BOX FOR EACH ITEM)

Should Be
Decreased
S u b s t a n tia lly
a.

Amount o f money s e t as id e
f o r s e rv ic e s d evelop ­
ment and new s e rv ic e s

[ ]

b.

C l i e n t advocacy programs

c.

e.

f.

h.

Decreased
Somewhat

3
Should
Stay
Same

4
Should Be
Increased
Somewhat

Should Be
Increased

Substantially

C]
C3

C3
E3

C3

[ ]

[]
C]

S ta te Involvem ent 1n
lo c a l p la n n in g fo r
human s e rv ic e s

[ ]

C]

C3

C3

[ ] V48‘

Amount o f fe d e r a l money
a v a ila b le f o r human
s e rv ic e s

[ ]

C]

C3

C3

[ ] V49C

J o in t p u b lic -v o lu n ta r y agency
p la n n in g f o r p a r t i c u l a r
c l i e n t groups.
(Exam ple,
abused c h ild r e n , v o c a tio n a l­
ly d is a d v a n ta g e d , e l d e r ly ,
rape v ic tim s , b a tte re d
women, e t c .

[, ]

C]

C3

C3

[3

R egional planning- f o r the
c o n s o lid a tio n o f s e p a ra te
human s e rv ic e s systems
(Example:
p h y sica l h e a lth ,
m ental h e a lt h , w e lfa r e /
Income s u p p o rt, personal
s o c ia l s e rv ic e s

[ 3

C3

[ ] V49E

Funds fo r In te ra g e n c y pro­
grams and g ran ts and
c o n tra c ts

[ ]

C3

-[ ] V49?

Amount o f money ra is e d by
U n ited Waycanpalgns

[ ]

C3

C ] V494

V4b :

1 3 V48r

V491

46-53

195

10
Cd 3
15.

How trtucK a re you pressured by each o f the fo llo w in g to develop a n d /o r
p a r t ic ip a t e In c o lla b o r a t iv e p ro je c ts w ith o th e r agencies?
{.CHECK ONE 50X FOR EACH ITEM)
1

2

3

4

No Pressure
A t A ll

S lig h t
Pressure

Local U n ited Way o rg a n iz a tio n

C 3

c 3

C 3

L

C 3

V49E

Area O ff ic e on Aging

C3

c 3

C

3

C

C 3

V49E

M ental h ealth , p la n n in g
o rg a n iz a tio n

C3

c

3

C 3

C

C 3

V497

Local community a c tio n
o rg a n iz a tio n {CAC/CAP)

[ 1

c

3

C

3

C

C l

V498

Local d e p a rtn e n t o f w e lfa re
o r s o c ia l s e rv ic e s

C 1

c 3

C 3

C

C 3

V499

Local ca m tu n lty development
p lann ing o rg a n iz a tio n o r c i t y /
county human s e rv ic e s d e p a rt­
ment.

C I

c 3

C 3

C

C 3

V50Q

O th e r agency d ir e c to r s and
s ta ff

C3

c 3

C 3

C

C 3

V501

^ h.
ft 1.

C lie n t groups

LI

L3

t 3

C 3

V502

S t a f f o f y o u r agency

C ]

C 3

C 3

C

C 3

V503

^

Board o r governing body o f
th is agency

I

3

I 3

C 3

E

C 3

V504

Community e o o ia ltte es

C 3

C 3

L

C

C 3

V505

1 a.

7 C.

'■d.
t

- e*
f.

'N 9-

s'

]•

Some
Pressure

3

G reat
Fressure

5
Very
G reat
Pressure

C

54-64
65-75 01k
76 Cd #
77 -6 0 Job#

196

11

16.

Cd 4
1*19 as I

For each o f th e fo llo w in g s e rv ic e s p lease e s tim a te th e le v e l o f unmet need
in t h is c o m ru n lty .
(CIRCLE YOUR ANSWER FOR EACH SERYICE)
u nh et need

LEVEL

C
M O

3
Moderate

4
G reat

5
V ery G reat

V506

Low

Moderate

G reat

Very Great

VS07

None

Low

Moderate

G rea t

Very G reat

V508

C o o rd in ated p lann ing f o r
new and improved s e rv ic e s

None

Low

Moderate

G reat

Very G reat

V509

C ounseling f o r c h ild re n and
youth

None

Low

Moderate

G reat

Very G reat

V510

C ounseling f o r a d u lts and
fa m ilie s '

None

-Low

Moderate

G reat

Very G reat

V511

3*

C r is is In te r v e n tio n s e rv ic e s

None

Low

Moderate

G rea t

Very G reat

V512

h.

Oay c a re fo r a d u lts

None

Low

M oderate

G re a t

Very G re a t

V513

1.

Oay c a re fo r c h ild re n

None

Low

Moderate

G reat

V ery G reat

V514

J.

Emergency a s s is ta n c e

None

Low

Moderate

G rea t*

Very G reat

V51S

k.

Employment s e rv ic e s

None

Low

. M oderate

G reat

Very G re a t

V516

1.

F am ily p la n n in g and programs

None

Low

Moderate

G rea t

Very G rea t

V517

m.

Food and n u t r it i o n

None

Low

Moderate

G reat

Very G reat

V518

n.

F r ie n d ly v i s i t i n g programs

None

Low

Moderate

G reat

Very G reat

V519

0.

H elp f o r s e n io r c it iz e n s

None

Low

Moderate

G rea t

Very G reat

V520

P.

Home h e a lth care

None

Low

Moderate

. G reat

Very G reat

V521

q.

Homemaker s e rv ic e s

None

Low

Moderate

G re a t

Very G reat

V522

r.

In fo rm a tio n and r e f e r r a l
s e rv ic e s

None

Low

Moderate

G reat

Very G reat

V523

s.

Legat s e rv ic e s f o r poor

None

Low

Moderate

G reat

Very G reat

V524

t.

Long-term f in a n c ia l assista n c e
(Incom e m aintenance)
None

Low

Moderate

G rea t

Very G reat

V525

M ental h e a lth tre a tm e n t
programs

None

Low

Moderate

G reat

Very Great

V526

Neighborhood development
s e rv ic e s

None

Low

Moderate

G reat

Very G reat

V527

a.

Advocacy

1
None

b.

A lco h olism and substance
abuse program

None

c.

CHORE s e rv ic e s

d.

e.

f.

u.

V.

j

20-41

197

12

Cd 4
UNMET NEED LEVEL

(Continued.)

w.

O u tp a tie n t m edical c a re

1
None

2
Low

Moderate

4
G reat

S
V ery G reat

V52a

X.

Programs f o r th e re ta rd e d

None

Low

Moderate

G reat

V ery G reat

V529

y.

P r o te c tiv e s e rv ic e s f o r
c h ild re n

None

Low

Moderate

G re a t

Very G re a t

V530

P r o te c tiv e s e rv ic e s f o r
a d u lts

None

Low

Moderate

G rea t

V ery G reat

V531

R e c re a tio n a l programs fo r
o ld e r a d u lts

None

Low

Moderate

G rea t

Very G re a t

V532

R e h a b ilit a t io n s e rv ic e s f o r
handicapped -and d is a b le d

None

Low

Moderate

G rea t

Very G reat

V533

R e s id e n tia l s e rv ic e s f o r
s p e c ia l groups

None

Low

Moderate

G rea t

Very G rea t

V534

S o c ia l ad ju s tm e n t and
In fo rm a l ed u catio n fo r
c h ild re n and youth

None

S
• O

M oderate

G reat

Very G reat

V535

S o c ia lIz a t lo n
(re s o e ia liz a tlo n )

None

Low

Moderate

G re a t

Very G reat

V536

S p ec ia l tra n s p o rta tio n
programs

None

Low

M oderate

G rea t

Very G reat

V537

gg.

V o c a tio n a l co u nselin g

Hone

Low

Moderate

G rea t

V ery G rea t

V538

hh.

V o c a tio n a l t r a in in g

None

Law

Moderate

G rea t

Very G rea t

V539

z.
u .

bb.

ce.

3

i

dd.

ee.

ff.

42 -5 2

(

198

Cd 4

13
DEMOGRAPHICS
17.

Which group d e s c rib e s yo u r age?

(CHECK ONE BOX)
r ‘ Less than 29
30 -39
f
40 -4 9
f 1 SO-59
60-69

r '

IS .

What Is th e h ig h e s t degree you hold?

1
2
3
4
5

53

(CHECK ONE BOX)
Some c o lle g e
9A o r BS
Some graduate M irk
M a s te r's degree
Coursework beyond M a s te r's
Ph.D .

19.

V540

What was y o u r m ajor d u rin g the work f a r yo u r mast re c e n t degree?

1
2
3
*
5
6

54 V541

(CHECK CHE 3CX)

S o c ia l Work
S o c ia l Science
Business and Economics
A rts and L e tte r s

1
2
3
4

55 V542

C ] O ther

(PLEASE SPECIFY)
20.

Are you a member o f any p ro fe s s io n a l o rg a n iz a tio n s ?
Yes
No

H
a.

2
1

56 V543

i

( I F YES)
How many?
(W R lft IN NUMBER)

b.

How many tim es In th e p ast y e a r have you atte n d ed p ro fe s s io n a l meetings and
conferences?
(WRITE IN NUMBER)

21.

57-5

What community s o d a !

s e rv ic e p la n n in g committees do you serve on?

§544

59 -60
V545
61 -752

(WRITE IM NAMES)

199

14

22.

What agency boards o r com m ittees do you serve on?

(WRITS IN NAMES)

23.

What s o c ia l s e rv ic e p la n n in g co o m lttaes do you serve on?

(WRITS IN NAMES OF
COMMITTEES)

Thant you ve ry much f o r c o n tr ib u tin g to our study o f d e liv e r in g mental h e a lth
s e rv ic e s to the a g in g .
In the space below would you p le as e t e l l us what
a d d itio n a l In fo rm a tio n we need to know about Im proving s e rv ic e s In yo u r
community?

Thank you again — Please re tu r n yo u r completed q u e s tio n n a ire In th e s e l f addressed envelope we have provided or m all to :
M arket O pinion Research
28 W. Adams
D e t r o it , MI 48226

(

APPENDIX A-4

Survey Instrument ™

Part C:

Client, Personnel, and Budget Information

200

PART I I I
In te rag e n c y D e liv e ry o f Mental
H ealth To The Aging
1-15

Label goes
here

10 15- 19

Our study o f s e rv lc a d e liv e r y systems a t the lo c al la v e l focuses upon
the re la tio n s h ip s among d if f e r e n t community agen cies, perceptions o f the
agency d ir e c to rs toward c o lla b o r a tiv e e f f o r t s , and the Impact o f d if f e r e n t
types o f s tru c tu re s In the t o ta l human services network.
You have been
suggested as a person who has g re a t knowledge about your agency s t r ic t u r e ,
and we would a p p rec iate your com pleting the attached form , and m a ilin g I t
back to our o f f ic e fo r processing and a n a ly s is .
9ased on our previous
re s e a rc h , we know almost a l l o f the data requested is re a d ily a v a ila b le
and has been used in o th e r re o o rts you com plete; th is In s tn m e n t w il l
re o u lre very l i t t l e o f your tim e and w i l l provide us w ith much needed
In fo rm atio n about your agency's formal s tru c tu re .
A ll In fo rm atio n gathered
In t h is study w i l l remain c o n fid e n tia l and no In d iv id u a l oerson o r agency
w i l l av er be Id e n t if ie d In any r e p o rt.
I f you have any questions about our research p r o je c t, please do not
h es1 t3te to c a ll and we s h a ll be hapoy to answer your In q u ir ie s . Thank
you In advance fo r c o n trib u tin g to our*.study; we s in c e re ly ap p reciate
your p a r t ic ip a tio n .
S in c e re ly ,

'

S& uU
P h il i p M. M arcus, D ir e c t o r
S o c ia l Science Research Bureau
M ich ig an S ta te U n iv e r s it y

Ann W. Sheldo n , A s s is ta n t
Departm ent o f S o c io lo g y
Wayne S ta te U n iv e r s it y

P ro fe s s o r

201

Cd 1
-21.

About how many people { In d iv id u a ls o r f a m ilie s ) use th e s e rv ic e s o r
programs o f your aqency each month?
______________________
VS46
(WRITE IN NUMBER OR ESTIMATE)

2.

V547
V548

What types o f c l i e n t s Is th e agency c u r r e n t ly (19 79 ) serving?
(We
a re n o t in te r e s te d 1n e l i g i b i l i t y , but in those a c t u a lly using the
agency” t h is y e a r . )
(CHECK ALL THAT- APPLY TO YOUR AGENCY}
Males
_ ____Females

_____ W hite

V553

_____ Black

V554

25 -39
1“ Y
0-N

V549

C h ild re n and youth

Spanish background

V550

Young a d u lts (under 30)

American In d ia n

V551

M idd le age a d u lts (3 0 -5 9 *

O th e r r a c i a l / e t h n i c group

V552

O ld er a d u lts (6 0 and o ld e r )

Low income

vrw

V556

V558

P h y s ic a lly handicapped

V559

M e n ta lly tro u b le d o r i l l
Unemployed

3.

,n
Z0“ Z4

V550

V5G1

In g e n e ra l, how s im ila r a re th e people ( in d iv id u a ls o r f a m ilie s ) who use
o r a re e l i g i b l e to use yo u r agen cy's s e rv ic e s and programs? (CHECK ONE)
Not a t a l l
J lig h tly

s im ila r

1

s im ila r

2

Somewhat s im ila r

3

G re a tly s im ila r

4

Very g r e a t ly s im ila r

5

40
V562

41 51k

I

202

Cd 1
-3 4.

What p ro p o rtio n o f the In d iv id u a ls o r f a m ilie s usinq your agency a re 1n
each o f th e fo llo w in g c a te g o rie s ?
(WRITE IN APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGES
FOR EACH CATEGORY.
IF YOUR AGENCY OOES NOT SERVE SUCH CLIENTS PLEASE
WRTTE IN "NONE.**)

a.

Need t r a in in g o r r e - t r a i n in g o f some
s o rt

5

42-43

V563

Have m u ltip le problems ( I . e . re q u ire
a v a r i e t y o f s e rv ic e s ]

5

44-45

V564

c.

R equ ire counsel1nq o f some s o r t

5

46-47

V565

d.

Are not. tro u b le d in some way ( i . e .
want to use some s e rv ic e you p ro vid e
such as using f a c i l i t i e s , be a group
member, re c e iv e some s p e c if ic a id
(n u r s in g , fo od , e t c . ) , ta k e a
c la s s , e t c . )

5

46 -49

V566

b.

5.

How many p a id s t a f f p o s itio n s does yo u r agency have? Please express
p a r t -tim e p o s itio n s 1n f u l l - t i m e e q u iv a le n ts .
(WRITE IN NUMBER)

a.

T o ta l number o f emolovee D o s itlo n s

50-52

V567

b.

How many o f these a re a d m in is tr a tiv e
o a s ltio n s ?

53-55

VS6S

c.

How manv a re P ro fe s s io n a l o a s ltio n s ?

56-56

V569

d.

How many a re p a ra -p ro fe s s io n a l
oos1t1cns7

59-61

V570

t.

How many a re c l e r i c a l - t e c h n i c a l
p o s itio n s ?

62-64

V571

f.

O ther p o s itio n s (PLEASE SPECIFY)

65-67

V572

6.

I f yo u r agency r e l i e s on v o lu n te e rs as s t a f f , ap p ro xim ately how many
v o lu n te e r hours a re c o n trib u te d each month?
68-72

V573

73-74

V574

(WRITE IN HOURS)

7.

What p ro p o rtio n o f the ag en cy's s t a f f were newly employed by th e agency
d u rin g th e p ast year7

m
lih lT E T N PERCENTAGE

75 B

203

Cd 2

-4'
8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

1-19 as 1

A re y o u r s t a f f re p re s e n te d by a union o r s t a f f a s s o c ia tio n ?
No

1

Yes

2

(CHECK ONE)

20

V575

21

V576

22-23

V577

24-25

V578

26 -2 7

V579

Has th e re been any s t r ik e o r work stoppage o f yo u r s t a f f d u rin g th e
p a s t th re e years?
(CHECK ONE)
No

1

Yes

2

P lease g iv e us a 1 1 s t o f jo b t i t l e s f o r yo u r agency ( 1 f p o s itio n 1s
budgeted b u t n o t c u r r e n t ly f i l l e d , p le as e In c lu d e on 1 1 s t ) .
(PLEASE
LIST JOB TITLES BELOW OA ATTACH INFORMATION)

What d if f e r e n t p ro fe s s io n a l and o c cu p atio n al s p e c ia lt ie s does your agency
employ? (PLEASE LIST SPECIALIZATIONS BELOW OR ATTACH INFORMATION)

How many d i f f e r e n t departm ents ( o r work u n its w ith a s u p e rv is o r) does
th e agency have?
(Wftl'ffi IN

nuKbBIJ

204

“5‘

13.

Cd 2

We need In fo rm a tio n about how th e work o f yo u r o rg a n iz a tio n Is done, and
s p e c i f i c a l l y , how s t a f f members who work w ith the aciency's users and
c l i e n t s do t h e i r work.
For each o f th e fo llo w in g ways o f w orking w ith p eo p le, please w r it e In
th e ap p ro xim ate p ro p o rtio n o f agency users o r c l i e n t s served by
each way o f w o rkin g .
I f th e approach l i s t e d 1s In a p p ro p ria te f o r your
agency, p lease w r it e In none.

a.

b.

c.

d.

14.

S t a f f members work to g e th e r as a team.
(WRITE IN PERCENT OF INDIVIDUALS OR
FAMILIES SERVED BYTHIS WAY OF WORKING) ______ %

V5E0

S everal d if f e r e n t s t a f f members p ro vid e
s e rv ic e to the u s e r / c l ie n t b u t th ey
work p r e t t y In d ep en d en tly o r 1n
seauence.
(WRITE IN PERCENT OF
INDIVUALS OR FAMILIES SERVED BY THIS
WAY OF WORKING)

?

3 {M ]

One s t a f f member p ro vides th e s e r v ic e .
(WRITE IN PERCENT OF INDIVIDUALS OR
FAMILIES SERVED BYTHIS WAY OR WORKING)

5

32 -33

V582

O th e r way o f w orking (PLEASE DESCRIBE
BRIEFLY)

5

34 -35

V583

What p ro p o rtio n o f the people who use yo u r agency s e rv ic e s a n d /o r programs
o r a re c l ie n t s o f your agency have th e same problems?

____________5
{wrT tl I n pe M e n T)
15.

V5S1

36-37

V584

38 -3 9

V585

40-41

V586

What p ro p o rtio n o f yo u r s t a f f do th e same work w ith th e agency's users
o r c lie n t s ?
0

(WRITE IN PERCENT)

16.

What p ro p o rtio n o f yo u r c lie n t s need s p e c ia liz e d te s tin g ?
i

(WRITE IN PERCENT)

205

Cd23

.6.
17,

P le a s e a tta c h an o r g a n lia tio n c h a rt I f one ts a v a ila b le .
I f n o t,
p le as e use the space below to sketch the a d m in is tr a tiv e s tr u c tu r e o f
th e agency.

Woi

13.

c o A?l

What was th e t o t a l Income o r revenue o f yo u r agency f o r the ca len d a r y e a r
1978 ( o r th e most re c e n t y e a r)? Please e n te r th e to ta l amount o f a l l
Income and revenue from any source In c lu d in g fe e s , c o n tra c ts , e tc .
I f e x a c t fig u re s a re n o t a v a l l a h le , p lease e s tim a te as c lo s e ly as p a s s ib le .
Omit funds fo r c l i e n t income m aintenance,
t

G t w A °i A ^ i U

O O O Q O O O O Q - RST
Nc» r u » p s * « *

1 *1 *1

5
(WRITE IN HUMBER)

18 b
F u n d in g

s o u rc e s

1 " M e n tio n
O " ll o t m e n t i o n e d
C i t y fu n d s
S t a t e fu n d s
F e d e r a l fu n d s
U n i t e d Way f u n d s
A g e n c ie s fu n d s
F o u n d a t io n fu n d s
B u s in e s s f u n d s
G ifts .s a le s .fe e s
o th e r .

.
■ 51 V588
. 5 2 V589
53 V590
54 V591
55 V592
56 V593
57 V594

1
2
3
4
5
6
9

4^*50

18c M a jo r s o u rc e s o f fu n d s
P u b lic
U n i t e d 'W a y
'5 9
A g e n c ie s
F o u n d a tio n s B u s in e s s
G ifts /o th e r
t •.
Ho I n f o r m a t i o n • ,

18d 1 o f b u d g e t
0 0 -9 7 A c tu a l
9 8 -1 0 0 -9 8
Ho r e s p o n s e 9 9

V596

60-61

V597

, -

5 8 V595
19 E a r m a r k e d f u n d s
1 M e n tio n
0 H o t m e n t io n e d

62

V598

43-ns- Qiic.
14* SO

VS 87

APPENDIX B

Metropolitan Area Variables Available

206

COItEBOOK - COMMUNITY STRUCTURE
(All Vara at COUNTY level, unless Indicated)

O

COLUMN

VAR.

DESCRIPTION

1,2

III

State,
11—
12—
13—
14—
15—
16—

Clty-County
Ann Arbor/Washtenaw
Flint/Genesee
Grand Rapldo/Kent
Kalamazoo /Kalamazoo
Lansing/Ingham
Sag!now /Saginaw

21—
22—
23—
24—
25—
26—

Akron /Sununl t
Canton/Stark
Dayton/Montgomery
Lima /Allen
Toledo /Lucas
Youngstown/Mahoning

I

I
3.4

Card

Card Number 01

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
5-10

I

VI'

11-15116-20
21-25
26-30
31-3536-4U
41-44 I t 1'
4S-4B

V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
vtt
V9

4U-5J

VII)

Distribution of Employees by Occupation - 1970.
I'rotcsulonal, technical and Kindred wprKcrs
Managers and administrators (deludes selT-empld:
Sales workers
excludes farm)
Clerical and kindred workers
Craftsmen, foremen and kindred workers
Operatives, transport equipment operatives
Laborers, except farm
Other (Farmers, farm managers; farm laborers;
private household workers)
Service workers (except private household)

V1L
V12
V13
VI4
Vl5
V16

Distribution of Employees by Industry - 1970
Agricultue,
forestry and fisheries
Hlning
Construction
Manufacturing
Triinsportatlon (Includes RR service, trucking)
Communications

*

Total employed 16.years and older.

.
54-57
5H-60
61-64
65-69
711-73
74-77

11'

!'

t;
i

END OF CARD 01
BEGINNING OF CARD 02
1,2
3.4

II)
Card

5-N
9-12
13-17

VI7
VIM
VIM

State/Clty-Caunty
Card Number 02
Utilities nnd snnltary services
Wholesale trade
Retail trade

207

.2

o

18-21

V20

22-2S
2G-30
11-35

V21
V22
V23

36-39
60-63
66-6B

'

' v26
V 2 r)
VZ6

. 69-52

v27

53-57
58-61
62-65
bb-70
71-75
7<i-mi

V28
V29
V30
VJ1
V32
V1J

1

Finance (includes banking and credit agencies,
insurance, real estate and other
finance)
Entertainment and recreation services
Hospitals and Health services
Education (includes government and private;
other education and kindred services)
Welfare, religious and nonprofit membership
organizations
Legal, engineering and misc. profeseiunul
Public Administration

Value added by Manufacturing - 1972 (In Millions)
9999“ "Withheld to avoid disclosure"

Income of Families
•
” Median Income
Less than $3,000.
$3000 - $6,999.
$5000'- $6,999.
$7000 - $9,999.
$10,0110 - 16,999.

(Humber of families)

UNO III" CARO 02
UHCINNlNt: OK CARD 03
1,2
I,/,

ID
Card

5-9
ttl-13
16-17

V36
V35
V36

IB-23
26

V37
V38

26-26
27-2H
2 9 -JO
ll-)2
11- ;/,
3 5 - )i,
37-3H
19

V39
V6U
V6I
V6 2
V61
V66
V65
V66

Card Number 3
$15,000 - 26,999.
$25,000 - $69,999.
$50,001) plus
Number of all families - 1969.
Headquarters of FORTUNE 1000 lnduscttnls, 1977.
Type of establishment by size of work force - 1956
195b AGRICULTURE
1-3 employees
6-7 employees
8-19 employees
20-69 employees
50-99 employees
100-269 employees
250-699
500 plus

208

t

>
40-41
42-43

44-45
46-47
4H-49
511-51
52-53
54-55

1956 MINING
1-3 employees
4-7
B-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500 plus

V47
V4H
V49
V5U

V51
V52
V53

V44

1956

56,57,5a
59,6U,61
62,67,64
65-66
67-6B

69-70
71-72
7J— 74

V55
V56
V57
V58
V59
VfiO
V6I
V62

CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION
1-3 employees
4-7 employees
B-19 employees
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500 plus

KND OF CARD -3
DKG INN INC OF CAItl) 04
1.2

II)

J.4

C.iril

5,6.7
H.9.IO
11,12,13
14,15,16
17-lfl
19-20
21-22
23-24

V63
V64
V65
V66
V67
V6B
V69
V70

25,26,27
28-29
30-31
32-33
34-35
36-37
3B-39
4(1-41

V71
V72
V73
V74
V75
V76
V77
V7U

42,43,44
45,46,47
48,49,50
51-52

V79
VHO
VB1
VB2
VH7
VH4
VH5
v86

57-54
45-4(i

47-48
59-60

1956

MANUFACTURING
1-3 employees
4-7 employees
8-19 employees
20-49 employees
50-99
100-249
250-499
500 plus

1956

PUBLIC UTILITIES
1-3 employees
4-7 employees
8-19 employees
20-49 employees
50-99
100- 249
250-499
500 plus

1956

WHOLESALE TRADE
1-3 employees
4-7 employees
8-19 employees
20-49 employees
50-99
100 - 249
250-499
500 plus

209

4

61,62,63,64
65,66,67
68,69,70
71,72,73
74-75
76-77
70-79
00

V87
V08
V89
V90
V91
V92
V93
V94

1956 RETAIL TRADE
1-3 employees
4-7 employees
B-19 employees
20-49 employees
50-99
100-249
250-499
500 plus

END OF CARD 04
BEGINNING OK CARD 05
1,2
3,4

ID
Curd

5,6.7
8-9
10-11
12-13
14-15
16-17
Sd-19
20-21

V95
V96
V97
V98
V99
V100
VIOl
V 102

1956 FINANCE, INSURANCE
1-3 employees
4-7
8-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500 plus

22,23,24,25
2b,27,20
29,30,31
32-33
34-35
36-37
30-39
40-41

VI03
V104
VI05
V106
V107
V 1(IH
V 11)9
V I 10

1956 SERVICES
1-3 employees
4-7 employees
8-19 employees
20-49
50-99
•
100-249
250-499
500 plus

42,43,44
45-46
47-48
49-50
51-52
53-54
55-56
57-58

VIII
V I 12
V113
V I 14
V115
V116
V117
V118

195 6 {HEALTH SERVICES - i
1-3 employees
4-7
8-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500 plus

V119
V12Q
V121
VI 22
VI 23
V 124
V 12 5
V I 26

Type of establlshme:
1966 AGRICULTURE
1-3 employees
4-7 employees
8-19 employees
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500 pluH

59-60
61-62
63-64
65-66
67-60
69-70
71-72
7 1-74

KM) OK CAHI) 05

210

. 5
BEGINNING OF CARD 06

(

1,2

m

3 (4

Curd

Card No. 06
1966 IIIHI Ni:
l-t entpluyuew
4-7
8-19 •
20-49
■
50-<J9
I(111-y
240-499
500 |ilim

’
—

V127
VI28
V129
V130
_ V131
V132
VI33
V134

5_6
7
8

9
10
U
12

13

'

1966
14,15,16
17,18,19
20,21,22
23-24
25-26
27-28
29-30
31-32

V135
V136
V137
V138
V]39
V14U
V141
9142

1 1,14,15, Hi
37,38,39.40
41,42,43,44
45,46,47,48
49-50
51-52
53-54
55-56

VI4 1
V144
V145
V146
V147
V148
Vt49
V150

CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION
1-1
4-7 employi'ioi
8-19 employees
20-49
50-99
IOO-2.49
2'.H-A99
400 |ilun

1966 mmn-AtrmitiNG

57,58,^1

1-1 iinpliiyeeu
4- ■ i'ni|ilnvi,t,:i
H-19 employees
30-49 cmpluyeeH
40-99
1110-249
3.40-499
4110 plus

1966 TRANSPORTATION 4.OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES
1— 1 URIJllliycON
4-7 enployccn
H-19 employees
20-49 employvon
40-99
100- 249
240-499

VI51
V152
V151
VJ 54
V155
VI 56
V157
V15B
END OF CARD 06

60-bl
62-63
64-65
66-67
68-69

70-71
72-71

4110 plim

IlltoJ

y

f

f

i

m

w

m

m

a

m

M B M M l

2

&

K1 hOKiM» H M IfiUl
4> ro © go w w * *
l l 1 I - * ►- B
ro ro roe- r— ►-* © ♦

Oi U u U N ^
I
t I t I t I*
^I'JULJUlkJM

ut u

M O

O' bO •

SI

MMMGO

ro

■O t*

CD

O
X-^S'
U'^O'OmOLH
Ul/
IiU
MlO
1 I I I I* * O'Q'O'mmls'isi-E*
«-roO&Bi~0'o
m m f*
X- i- 33

> M C 3 I U « N vOUI
I I I I- * - X«X>^UUULie)
uiWM'Ocruco'
lj u* to ro
•o x* e-

K}tgwhMH0U<
-P.t
1o —i M*ioM«*
iiMj-> Mr
*- S
O'
r>J N
• m
i'NOtty'MHM
■ - oM- H
O' bJ

MJMr'COOO^

<<<<<<<<
O'C'O'O'O'O'O't*
O'i/'-fi^u-roe-O'O

li

<<<<<<<<
<<
< < < < < < _M H »5 S
M — ►— m M
; 00 QQ Q *0 v| n I *J sj
i -OdAMirui
\0 CO CD 09 (D QD
0930*1 O r
>
O 'O Q9"0O't*
X*bJG- X 2
n a
>
33 O
3 -o

<<<<<<<-

%DO'
O'

*“—: w.7"nTx»;£ C ^ ?1 r
k
a
i *= %c
a x ■»
o2
x
o x xt
X c
*n< *i
*: nit
<
5
X
ft 33
c ^x
x
x
1

a 'j" c = T f " £
c C
CI » —
-si — r
£:
i i >c
c
coo
X

~2
S <£■

X
5
f

X i• * f 7 i
“ 7 T i *;<c . e
ZSj?w w ^ a s »
: ^ x JJ “ “ >
^
—

: c S

• •<
<
t*
^s c
c
«: c x x
x

<p
O'
O'
53

n
»
FI
O’
(I
n

to
rt
C
9
FH
2
2
•M
2
19
o
n

>
x
a

211

-"s 7
^ 7^ i i«cS ' -*
g" "
^

o
O'
O'

O'

es

212

7

43-44
43-46
47
48
49
5U
51
52
61

V199
V200
V2(Jl
V202
V203
V204
V206
V200
V2D7

T ype of establishment by size of work force-1976.
1976 AGRICULTURE
1-4 employees
5-9 employees
10-19 empluyees
20-49 employees
30-99 employees
100-249 employees
250-499 employees
500-999 employees
1000 plus

54-56
56-57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64

V208
V209
V210
V21I
V212
V2IJ
V214
V215
V216

1976 HLNlNli
.
1-4 employees
5-9 employees
10-19
20-49
50-99
10(1-249
250-499
500-999
1000 plus

END OR CARD 0.8
iu:oiNnm: ok card 09
1 ,2

111

J,4

Card

5,6,7
8,9,10
11,12,13
14-16
16-17
IH-I'J
2(1-21
22-23
24-25

V217
V218
V219
V22U
V221
V222
V223
V224
V225

26,27,28
29,30,31
32,33,34
35,36,37
18-19
40-41
42-4 3
44-45
46-47

V226
V227
V228
V229
V23II
V21I
V232
9211
V214

Card No. 09
1976

CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION
1-4 employees
5-9 employees
10-19 employees
20-49
50-99
1(10-249
250-499
.
500-999
‘
1000 plus

1976

MANUFACTURING
1-4 employees
5-9 employees
10-19 employees
20-49 employees
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
1000 plus

213

u

48,49,50
51-52
53-54
55-5<i
57-58
59-60
61-62
61-64
65-66

V2J5
V2J6
V237
V218
V2J9
V24Q
V24]
V242
V241

1976 TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER PUni.TC UTILITIES
1-4 employees
5-9 employees
10-19 employees
20-49 employees
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
1000 plus

END OF CARD 09
BEGINNING OF CARD 10
1.2
1.4

ID
Card

5,6,7
8,9,JO
11,12,13
14,15,16
17-lH

V244
V245
V246
V247
V24B
V249
V250
V251
V252

10-20
21-22
21-24
24-26

27,2H,29,10

II,12, II
14,34, 16
J7,18,19
40-41
42-41
44-4 4
46-4 7
48-49

50,51,52
51,54,55
56,57,58
59-60

61-62
61-64
65-66
67-68
69-70

Card No. 10
1976 WHOLESALE TRADE
1-4 employees
5-9 employees
10-19 employees
20-49 employees
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
100(1 plus
1976

RETAIL TRADE
1-4 employees
5-9 employees
10-19 employees
20-49 employees
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
1000 plus

1976

FINANCE, INSURANCE 6 REAL ESTATE
1-4 employees
5-9 employees
10-19 employees
20-49 employees
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
1000 plus

V2S1
V254
V255
V256
V257
V25H
V259
V260
V261

V262
V263
V264
V265
V/266
V267
V268
V269
V270
END OF CARD 10

214

UKCINNINR OP CARO 11
1.2

ID

1,4

O.ird

3,h,7,H
'7,10,11
12,1 1,14

V271
V 272
V273
V274
V275
V276
V277
V27H
V279

ir>,i(>, 17

20-21
22-2 1

24-2 '\

26-27

O.ird Number 11
1976 SERVICES
1-4 employees
5-9 employees
10-19 employees
20-49 employees
50-99
100-249 *
250-499
500-999
1000 plus
1976

28,29,30
■J1.32.J3
14-13

>6-17
JU-39
A 0-41
42-4 t
44-43
40-4 7

V280
V2HI
V2H2
V2H 1
V2H4
V2B5
V2H0
V2H7
V2KH

38
3'l
00

V2K9
V29U
V2'J1
V292
V 2*1 J
V294
V295
V29h
V2't7

01-62

V2'J8

48-4'l

Stl-bI
32-3 1
34-33
30

37

I'NO (IP CAHO 11

{HEALTH SERVICES)-Subcategory of SERVICES
1-4 employees
5-9 employees
10-19 employees
20-49 employees
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
1000 piun

1976 (SOCIAL SERVICES -SuhcateRory of SERVICES)
1-4 employees
5-9 employees
10-19 employees
20-49 employees
50-99 employees
100-249
250-499
500-999

loon plus
NUHIIKH OP LABOR OHflANIZAT10NS— listed lit
City pliunu litreelory— each local counted
separately (1978)

215

10
BEGINNING OP CARD 12
.

3.4

tn
Card

Card Number 12

POPULATIONS CHARACTERISTICS
5,ft.7 ,8,9,10

V299

Population far central county - 1970

11 ,1 2 ,13,14,15.16

V300

Population for Central County - 1975

17, IB ,19,20

V301

Population Density (per aq, mile) - 1970

21-22

V302

Papulation Change 1960-1970 In percent

21,24 ,25

V301

Not migration 1960-1970 (In percent, tenths)

2 f t - 11

V304

Actual IN HIGRATION 1965-1970

12-17

V305

Actual OUT HIGRATION 1965-1970

1H,1'( ,40

Vlflfi

Karclgn Stack - 1970 (In percent, tenths)

41,42 ,43

V307

Foreign Stock - 1960 (In percent, tenths)

44-45

V10H

Spanish Heritage 1970 (In percent, tenths)

4fi-50

V309

Black population - 1970

51,52

,41

VllO

54,.55 ,5(>
57-58
5‘J,ftl) ,ftl

V II1
V312

62,61 ,64

V3I4 .

V113

Change in Black population 1960-1970 (percent
In tenths)
Educations persons'2S yearn plua In 1970
Hud Inn years (In tenths)
Less than 5 years (percent In tenths)
High School graduate or more (percent
In tenths)
Four years college or more (percent
In tenths)

HN1) CAUI) 12
IIK.CINNING OK CAUI) 13
1.2
3,4

II)
Card

5-9
10-15

V315

16—2.1

V317
V318
V319
V120

22-27
2H-32
11-37

V316

Card Number 13
Age of Population. 1970
Under 5 years of age
Under IB years of ag£)
16 years and. over _ %
21 years and aver
60 years thru 64 .years
65 years and older..

216

11

P overty Status of Population - 1969.

jB-'jy

V321

40,41,42

V322

43,44,45

V323

46,47,4H

V124

4‘
J,50,51

V325

52,53,54,55
56-60
hi-65

V326
VI2 7
V328

6h-69

V329

Percent families with Income leas than
poverty, (tenths)
Percent persons with Income less than
poverty, (tenths)
Percent families with Income less than
125X poverty, (tenths)
Percent^ persons with income less than
125Z' povurty. (tenths)
Percent perBDns below law Income level,
65 years and over, (tenths)
Recipients of Old Age Assistance (1972).
Recipients of A.D.C. (1972)
WHITE Median Family Income - 1969.
BI.ACK Median Family Income - 1969,

END OF CARD 13
IIKCl NNlNli OF CARD 14
1.2

1,4

III
Cord

Card Number 14

COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS
5.6

V33II

Humber of Suburban Governments.

7,a

VTII

Suburbanization of high income population;
(ratio In tenths).
Figure less than 1,00
lndlcntes that the high Income population
Is concentrated In the city.

9,10,11
12,13,14

V332
V333

15-16

V334

17-18

V335

'CITY Age (based on first census year city
reached papulation of 50,000 plus)-l975.

19,20,21,22

V 136

CHIME RATE (pec 100,01)0 papulation residing
In COUNTY July 1, 1975).

23,24,25,26

V 337

Assessed Value of REAI, Property subject to
local general property taxation for
COUNTY - 1971.
(In Hllllons of Dollars)

27,28.29, 10
11,32,33

V33B
V339

Bank Deposits - Total, June 1970 (Hllllons)
Bonk Deposits - Time, June 1970 (Millions)

Population Concentration,
City/central e.ouncy (In tenths)
Clcy/SMSA (In tenths)
COUNTY Age (based on first census year to
reach population of 100,000 plus) as of 197

217

34-35

V34()

Intergovernmental for 1967 (Z of General
Kuvcnuu)

16-37

V341

Travel B u m s - 1978.

38-39

V342

Number of Catholic Churches In County - 1971.

40,41,42

V343

Catholic percentage of population- 1971.(tent!

V344

Vote m a t

4'), 50,51

V345

Votufor Leading Party (percent In tenths)

52

V346

Number of Chamber* of Commerce in 1978-county

5J.54,55

V347

Number of Federal Grants - 1977.

56,57,58,59,60,61,62

V 148

Local United Way money raiaed In 1975.

4 1,44,45,46,47,48

for prcaldent, 1968.

KNI) OF CAHO 14
BEGINNING OK CAUI) 15
1,2
>,4
,6,7 ,8

11)
Card

Card Numher 15

V349

CITY employees - 1972.

9-13

V 350

Local Government employment - 1972.

'14-18

V351

Federal Government employment - 1970.

19,20,21

VI92

22-23

V353

General public expenditure - 1971/72 (In
millions of dollars)
Welfare expenditure 1971-72 (percent In tcntln

24,25,26

V344

Health Expenditure 1971-72 (percent In tenths)

27,28,29

V355

General expenditure CITY government 1969-70,
(in Kllllonu of dollars) fin tenths)

i

218

8/ 10/79
-13-

Addondum to COMMUNITY STRUCTURE COnEDnOK.

(tiiliinji

V;tr [able

30

V356

FORH OF CITY COVERNMENT
Mayor and council R o u e m m e n c . 1972
U**nu
1-yus

3t

VI57

Cnuncil-Mannnor. 1972
0-no
1-yes

32

V35B

Reform L’overnment. 1972.1976.
Four point scale scoring one eacli Cor
non-pnrtlsan elect Ions (1976), city
manager system (1972), anti at-large
election of councilman (1972).

33-34

V359

National Headquarters -Voluntary
Associations, 1972-73.

33 - l(i

VH.O

National Headquarters - Voluntary
Associations, 1978-79.
(99-HOT AVAILABLE)

J/,38,19

VMil

lltflclal Unemployment of Labor Force J6 years
and older, 1970 (in percent, tenths)

60,61,62,61,66,66
46,47,43,49,50,51

V362
V363

1961) Votes for President.
HepubIlean
Democratic

52,53,54,55,56,57
611, 59,(.0,61 ,62,6 1

VI64
V'165

1968 Votes for President,
Republican
llcmucralic

64,65.66,67,6B.69
70,71,72,73,74,75

V366
V3b7

1976 Votes for President
Republican
Democratic

APPENDIX C

Tables of Correlations for Cities

219
TABLE C-l
The Relationship of Size to Complexity in the Twelve Cities

City

N

zero-order correlation and
significance (one-tailed)**

partial correlation* and
significance (one-tailed)**

20

0.6863
p < 0.001

0.7016
p =» 0.003

2

26

0.4938
p => 0.005

0.5236
p = 0.009

3

21

0.3960
p = 0.038

0.4226
p = 0.058

4

24

0.3684
p « 0.038

0.4272
p = 0.039

5

23

0.4249
p - 0.022

0.5153
p = 0.017

6

24

0.4307
p - 0.018

0.4731
p = 0.024

7

21

Or 6374
p < 0.001

0.7745
p < 0.001

8

21

-0.0520
p = 0.589

-0.0008
p = 0.501

9

25

0.7190
p < 0.001

0.7672
p < 0.001

10

22

0.5145
p » 0.007

0.5061
p = 0.023

11

25

0.4347
p - 0.015

0.3493
p « 0.071

12

20

0.5608
p = 0,005

0.6009
p = 0.012

1

*

,

controlling for IOR, centralization, formalization, internal
communication, and efficiency

** based on prediction of positive correlation

220
TABLE C-2
The Relationship of Size to IOR Formation In the TWelve Cities

City

1

20

2

26

3

4

5

6

12

P

0.6278
< 0.001

0.7367
p < 0.001

p

0.1597
» 0.245

-0.1319
p = 0.680

p

0.6137
< 0.001

0.7961
p < 0.001

p

0.5332
= 0.004

0.4887
p = 0.023

p

0.0430
= 0.421

0.2046
p = 0.208

-0.0237
p
- 0.541

0.0244
p = 0.466

24

21

11

0.5651
p = 0.018

23

8

p

0.3037
= 0.090

p

p

0.5065
= 0.005

0.1026
p = 0.338

0.5450
p
“ 0.004

0.4080
= 0.058

25

22

partial correlation* and
significance (one-tailed)**

0.4849
p = 0.015

24

21

10

zero-order correlation and
significance (one-tailed)**

21

7

9

*

N

25

p

0.1874
= 0.252

p

0.1496
= 0.238

0.0003
p = 0.499

p

0.2953
= 0.149

0.2817
p =» 0.165

20

controlling for complexity, centralization, formalization, internal
communication, and efficiency

** based on prediction of positive correlation

221
TABLE C-3
The Relationship of Complexity to IOR Formation in the Twelve Cities

City

N

20

zero-order correlation and
significance (one-tailed)**

partial correlation* and
significance (one-tailed)**

0.1363
p = 0.283

-0.1956
p ** 0.749

0.0222

26

8

p =* 0.457

-0.4055
p = 0.962

21

0.3226
p » 0.077

0.0659
p = 0.408

24

0.3187
p = 0.065

-0.1727
p = 0.753

23

-0.0661
p = 0.618

-0.3670
p = 0.926

24

-0.1536
p « 0.763

-0.1559
p - 0.732

21

-0.0331
p = 0.557

-0.0358
p = 0.550

21

0.0111

p = 0.519

-0.1704
p = 0.728

-

9

25

0.4967
p = 0.006

0.2038
p = 0.201

10

22

0.2521
p = 0.129

-0.1361
p = 0.792

11

25

0.2370
p = 0.127

0.2240
p = 0.178

12

20

0.1570
p = 0.254

-0.0663
p = 0.589

*

controlling for size, centralization, formalization, internal
communication, and efficiency

** based on prediction of positive correlation

222
TABLE C4-1
The Relationship of Innovation to Size in the Twelve Cities

City

N

zero-order correlation and
significance (two-tailed)

partial correlation* and
significance (two-tailed)

1

20

0.0877
p =* 0.714

-0.2521
p = 0.312

2

26

0.0822
p =
0.690

0.1340
p - 0.532

3

21

0.1109
p =
0.632

0.1910
p = 0.434

4

24

-0.1389
p =
0.518

-0.5046
p = 0.016

5

23

0.5876
p =
0.004

0.3502
p = 0.120

6

24

-0.0730
p ** 0.734

0.0748
p = 0.740

7

21

-0.1679
p =
0.466

-0.3413
p = 0.152

8

21

-0.0071
p =
0.976

-0.1061
p - 0.666

9

25

-0.3337
p =
0.104

-0.5981
p < 0.001

10

22

0.3945
p =
0.070

0.3947
p = 0.084

11

25

0.5728
p <
0.001

0.5927
p < 0.001

12

20

0.5956
p =
0.006

0.5558
p = 0.016

*

controlling for complexity and IOR

223
TABLE C4-2
The Relationship of Innovation to Complexity in the Twelve Cities

City

1

N

20

zero-order correlation and
significance (two-tailed)

0.1496

P - 0.528
2

26

0.0223

partial correlation* and
significance (two-tailed)

0.2577
p = 0.302

P = 0.914

-0.0652
p - 0.762

3

21

-0.1634
p - 0.480

-0.2947
p = 0.220

4

24

0.5215
p - 0.008

0.6189
p < 0.001

5

23

0.3070
p = 0.154

0.1503
p = 0.516

6

24

-0.2657
p = 0.210

-0.2981
p = 0.178

7

21

0.1298
p - 0.574

0.3315
p = 0.166

8

21

0.2141
p = 0.352

p

0.2256
=* 0.354

9

25

0.1237
p = 0.556

0.5481
p = 0.006

10

22

0.0854
p = 0.706

-0.1525
p = 0.520

11

25

0.0981
p =• 0.640

-0.2392
p = 0.272

12

20

0.2549
p = 0.278

-0.1195
p = 0.636

*

controlling for size and IOR

224
TABLE C4-3
The Relationship of Innovation to IOR Formation the Twelve Cities

City

N

zero-order correlation and
significance (two-tailed)

partial correlation* and
significance (two-tailed)

20

0.3433
p = 0.138

0.4061
p =* 0.094

26

-0.0172
p = 0.934

-0.1080
p = 0.616

3

21

0.1916
p “ 0.406

0.2596
p - 0.284

4

24

0.1657
p = 0.438

0.3122
p - 0.158

23

0.4190
p 3 0.046

p » 0.384

0.2000

6

24

-0.1542
p - 0.472

-0.2123
p = 0.342

7

21

0.2791
p - 0.220

0.3016
p = 0.210

21

0.3183
p = 0.160

0.3433
p = 0.150

25

-0.0827
p = 0.694

-0.0205
p = 0.926

10

22

0.1607
p = 0.476

-0.0774
p ° 0.746

11

25

0.2028
p = 0.332

0.1915
p = 0.382

12

20

0.1610
p = 0.498

p = 0.930

*

controlling for size and complexity

0.0222

225
TABLE C4-4
The Relationship of Innovation to Centralization In the Twelve Cities

City

N

zero-order correlation and
significance (two-tailed)

partial correlation* and
significance (two-tailed)

20

0.0605
p = 0.800

0.1123
p =* 0.668

26

-0.2028
p = 0.320

-0.2246
p » 0.302

3

21

-0.0650
p = 0.780

-0.2191
p ** 0.382

4

24

-0.2258
p =» 0.288

0.0193
p = 0.934

5

23

0.0343
p ** 0.876

-0.1446
p = 0.544

6

24

-0.0087
p = 0.968

-0.0904
p = 0.696

7

21

0.0907
p = 0.696

0.0264
p » 0.918

8

21

-0.2269
p => 0.322

-0.0959
p = 0.706

25

-0.2519
p = 0.224

-0.0868
p = 0.700

10

22

0.0567
p = 0.802

0.2736
p = 0.256

11

25

0.1195
p = 0.570

0.1284
p = 0.568

12

20

-0.0803
p =■ 0.736

-0.0244
p a 0.926

*

controlling for size, complexity, IOR, formalization,
internal communication, and efficiency

226
TABLE CA-5
The Relationship of Innovation to Internal Communication
in the Twelve Cities

City

N

zero— order correlation and
significance (two-tailed)

partial correlation* and
significance (two-tailed)

1

20

0.3190
p 0.170

0.3031
p - 0.236

2

26

0.0825
p =
0.688

0.0655
p = 0.766

3

21

0.0932
p =
0.688

-0.0235
p = 0.926

A

2A

-0.1808
p =
0.398

-0.1090
p = 0.638

5

23

0.293A
p «
0.17A

0 . 13AA
p = 0.572

6

2A

0.2706
p =
0.200

0.1171
p = 0.61A

7

21

0.08A0
p =
0.718

0.1299
p = 0.608

8

21

0.0671
p =
0.772

0.0666
p = 0.792

9

25

0.2568
p =
0.216

0.3737
p = 0.086

10

22

-0.2205
p 0.32A

-0.2977
p =216256

11

25

0.A500
p =
0.02A

0.3129
p = 0.156

12

20

0.1096
p »
0.6A6

0.0918
p = 0.726

*

controlling for size, complexity, IOR, centralization,
formalization, and efficiency

227
TABLE C4-6
The Relationship of Innovation to Formalization in the Twelve Cities

City

N

zero— order correlation and
significance (two-tailed)

partial correlation* and
significance (two-tailed)

20

-0.0845
p = 0.722

0.0479
p = 0.856

26

-0.0074
p = 0.972

-0.0005
p = 0.998

0.0120
p =* 0.660

-0.1191
p = 0.638

24

-0.0498
p “ 0.818

-0.1980
p = 0.390

23

-0.3058
p = 0.156

-0.4894
p = 0.028

24

0.1127
p = 0.600

0.0893
P = 0.700

21

0.2857
p = 0.210

0.5098
p = 0.030

21

0.0322
p = 0.890

-0.0711
p = 0.780

25

0.0801
p = 0.704

0.0354
p = 0.876

10

22

0.0057
p = 0.980

0.1826
p = 0.454

11

25

0.1282
p = 0.524

0.0980
p a 0.664

12

20

0.0670
p = 0.778

0.1764
p = 0.498

21

*

-

controlling for size, complexity, IOR, centralization,
internal communication, and efficiency

228
TABLE C4-7
The Relationship of Innovation to Efficiency in the Twelve Cities

City

N

zero-order correlation and
significance (two-tailed)

partial correlation* and
significance (two-tailed)

20

-0.3845
p = 0.094

-0.4474
p - 0.072

26

-0.0780
p = 0.706

-0.0516
p = 0.814

21

0.2627
p = 0.250

0.2137
p = 0.394

4

24

0.2272
p = 0.286

-0.1238
p - 0.592

5

23

-0.2501
p = 0.250

-0.0507
p = 0.832

6

24

-0.2151
p = 0.312

-0.2384
p = 0.298

7

21

-0.0018
p = 0.994

-0.0945
p - 0.710

8

21

0.2013
p => 0.382

0.2089
p = 0.406

25

0.1614
p - 0.440

-0.1086
p = 0.630

10

22

-0.2185
p » 0.328

-0.2184
p * 0.370

11

25

0.0664
p ■ 0.752

0.3252
p = 0.140

12

20

-0.1795
p = 0.448

0.2524
p = 0.328

*

controlling for size, complexity, IOR, centralization,
internal communication, and formalization

229
TABLE C5-1
The Relationship of IOR Formation to Centralization
in the Twelve Cities

City

N

zero-order correlation and
significance (two-tailed)

partial correlation* and
significance (two-tailed)

1

20

0.1780
p 0.452

0.0589
p = 0.816

2

26

0.1620
p =
0.430

0.0417
p = 0.846

3

21

-0.0685
p =
0.768

0.0274
p = 0.912

4

24

-0.0109
p =* 0.960

0.0262
p = 0.908

5

23

-0.0455
p ** 0.836

-0.3614
p = 0.108

6

24

0.0088
p =
0.968

-0.0388
p - 0.864

7

21

0.1813
p =
0.216

0.1794
p = 0.462

8

21

-0.3186
p 0.160

-0.2757
p = 0.254

9

25

-0.1955
0.350

-0.2031
p = 0.342

P =
10

22

-0.1443
p =
0.522

0.1336
p » 0.574

11

25

0.3058
p 0.138

0.3390
p = 0.114

12

20

-0.1522
p »
0.522

-0.1419
p = 0.574

*

controlling for size and complexity

230
TABLE C5-2
The Relationship of IOR Formation to Internal Communication
In the Twelve Cities

City

N

zero-order correlation and
significance (two-tailed)

partial correlation* and
significance (two-tailed)

1

20

0.0866
p = 0.716

0.0254
p = 0.920

2

26

-0.1914
p =
0.350

-0.3043
p = 0.148

3

21

0.2615
p =
0.252

0.2317
p = 0.340

4

24

-0.0726
p =
0.736

-0.0375
p => 0.868

5

23

0.4629
p =
0.026

0.2715
p = 0.234

6

24

0.1245
p =
0.562

-0.0087
p - 0.970

7

21

-0.2328
p => 0.310

-0.2321
p = 0.338

8

21

-0.1172
p =
0.612

-0.0537
p = 0.828

9

25

-0.0189
p =
0.928

-0.1547
p = 0.480

10

22

0.1689
p =* 0.452

0.0919
p = 0.700

11

25

0.1568
p =
0.454

0.1173
p =»0.594

12

20

-0.3193
p =
0.170

-0.3479
p = 0.158

*

controlling for size and complexity

231
TABLE C5-3
The Relationship of IOR Formation to Formalization
in the Twelve Cities

City

N

zero-order correlation and
significance (two-tailed)

partial correlation* and
significance (two-tailed)

1

20

-0.2214
p “ 0.348

-0.3735
p ■* 0.126

2

26

0.0179
p = 0.930

p

0.0274
« 0.898

0.4935
p = 0.024

p

0.4094
= 0.082

0.0156
p =
0.942

p

0.3022
** 0.172

0.1802
p =
0.410

p

0.0614
= 0.792

3

4

5

21

24

23

6

24

-0.0525
p °
0.808

-0.0659
p = 0.770

7

21

0.0228
p 0.922

p

0.0245
= 0.920

0.0145
p =
0.950

p

0.0637
= 0.796

8

21

9

25

-0.1012
p =* 0.630

-0.1751
p = 0.424

10

22

-0.2084
p =
0.352

-0.1187
p =■0.618

11

25

0.1499
p =■ 0.474

JJ.0815
p « 0.712

12

20

-0.0172
p =
0.942

-0.0222
p = 0.930

*

controlling for size and complexity

232
TABLE C5-4
The Relationship of IOR Formation to Efficiency
in the Twelve Cities

City

N

zero-order correlation and
significance (two-tailed)

partial correlation* and
significance (two-tailed)

20

-0.1862
p « 0.432

0.0269
p = 0.916

26

0.0787
p = 0.702

0.2048
p ** 0.338

21

-0.1390
p = 0.548

24

0.0388
p ** 0.858

0.5800
p =» 0.004

5

23

-0.1479
p a 0.500

0.1241
p = 0.592

6

24

0.3334
p = 0.102

0.3466
p “ 0.114

7

21

-0.0929
p = 0.688

-0.1450
p = 0.554

8

21

-0.1738
p = 0.452

-0.0488
p = 0.842

25

-0.4967
p = 0.012

-0.3734
p “ 0.080

10

22

-0.3061
p = 0.166

-0.2159
p = 0.360

11

25

-0.0487
p => 0.818

-0.0019
p = 0.994

12

20

0.0022

0.1821
p *» 0.470

p = 0.992

*

controlling for size and complexity

0.0211
p - 0.932
-