Modelling NPO–Government Relations: Australian case studies

Abstract

Non-profit organizations (NPOs) are major providers of services in many fields of endeavour, and often receive financial support from government. This article investigates different forms of government/nonprofit funding relationships, with the viewpoint being mainly, though not exclusively, from the perspective of the non-profit agencies. While there are a number of existing typologies of government/NPO relations, these are dated and in need of further empirical analysis and testing. The article advances an empirically derived extension to current models of government/NPO relations. A future research agenda is outlined based on the constructs that underpin typologies, rather than discrete categorization of relationships.

Access to Philanthropic and Commercial Income Among Nonprofit Community Service Organisations

“…In recent years, however, reduced government funding has contributed to acute financial pressures among nonprofits, contributing to strong critique of the tendency for purchaser-provider models to undermine capacity to deliver high quality and independent services (Furneaux and Ryan 2014;ACOSS 2014;Cortis and Blaxland 2014). Like under the UK's 'Big Society' agenda (Centre for Social Justice 2014; Alcock et al 2012;Evans 2011;Hogg and Baines 2011), Australian nonprofits are being encouraged by governments to develop private resource models, including through social investment, private and corporate giving, and social enterprise, to complement or substitute for inadequate levels of public welfare spending and provision (Addis et al 2014;Eggers and Macmillan 2013;Zappala and Lyons 2008).…”

Modelos para parcerias entre governos e organizações da sociedade civil: análise comparativa de políticas de AIDS, assistência social e cultura no Brasil

“…As a proposal to simplify this classification, using Coston (1998) and Furneaux & Ryan (2014), we have produced the following scheme: Figure 2 summarizes ideal types of partnerships, the initial part of a typology according to Doty and Glick (1994). The types in red on the left may be considered resistant to government interaction and have less potential to produce effective outcomes.…”

“…Overall, empirical studies applying the models of partnerships focused on comparisons at the macro level, seeking to classify and position them into a scale showing countries differences or policy areas distinctions (Appe & Layton, 2016;Bode & Brandsen, 2014;Buckingham, 2012;Furneaux & Ryan, 2014;Proulx, Bourque, & Savard, 2007;Young, 2006).…”

“…4. Regulation: More recent works that seek to update the models of Coston and Najam (Almog-Bar & Zychlinski, 2012;Brown & Troutt, 2004;Furneaux & Ryan, 2014;Proulx et al, 2007) have increasingly identified regulatory issues. Regulatory factors aimed at promoting transparency and fair competition should be enabled.…”

Civil Society and Nonprofits in the Age of New Public Governance: Current Trends and Their Implications for Theory and Practice

“…These power asymmetries raise concerns that involvement of nonprofit organizations in public service delivery will lead to their overdependence on government, a change in their distinctive roles and contributions as members of civil society, bureaucratization and over-professionalization of civic organizations. There is also wide variation in the success of these collaborations, and even though it may appear that a given collaboration has been successful, this may well be in name only (Furneaux and Ryan 2014;Phillips & Smith 2014). In fact, while the focus of public service provision have shifted to interorganizational networks and relations and while partnership has gained prominence in the government-nonprofit relations discourse, many of the old NPM policies and arrangements are still in place (Phillips and Smith 2014).…”