No abstract

Over the past thirty years, there has been a dramatic transformation in the way the American political process operates. There has been a growing public perception that traditional political institutions lack the capacity to meet existing challenges. This has led many observers to call for a rethinking of how government does its work. Numerous alternatives, including the use of faith-based organizations, have been suggested. The current popular debate on the appropriate role of faith-based organizations in public service delivery has shed little light on a number of important issues raised by engaging such actors in governance issues. The impact of using faith-based institutions to design and implement public policy must be considered not only in terms of traditional evaluation standards, but also regarding potential long-term impacts on the political process itself. This article outlines a theoretical framework for the evaluation of faith-based organizations as "alternatives" to conventional governance structures. It identifies key practical and theoretical issues raised by such substitution, in both short and long range systemic terms. Copyright 2007 by The Policy Studies Organization.

Colleagues, legislative staff, interest groups, administrative agencies, universities and think tanks, the media, and constituents are some of the more commonly recognized sources of information for state legislators. Results of a survey of 507 legislators in 12 U.S. states reveal that ethnic associations, grassroots organizations, the Internet, local branches of national or state organizations, and conferences are also sources of information for state legislators. The relative importance of the various sources is linked to characteristics of the legislators and the districts they represent. This suggests the need for targeted information dissemination strategies to influence state-level public policy.

In recent years, we have witnessed an increase in the role and influence of nonprofit organizations in local and regional policy decisions. Often, these organizations assume a quasi-governmental role in pursuit of their missions. Roles of coalition builder and policy initiator/formulator join more traditional roles of service provider and policy advocate. These emerging roles forge new relationships between the nonprofit, for-profit, and public sectors. In Detroit, there is evidence that nonprofit organizations such as New Detroit and Detroit Renaissance can play a role in redefining the local political agenda. Yet that role is severely limited if such organizations are not tied to public authority.

No abstract